Now That You Could be Labeled an Enemy Combatant

[Robert]

Since Congress recently handed Bush the power to identify American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely without charge, it's worth examining the administration's record of prisoner abuse as well as the building of stateside detention centers.

As Texas governor (from 1995-2000) Bush oversaw the executions of 152 prisoners, and thus became the most-killing governor in the history of the United States. Ethnic minorities, many of whom did not have access to proper legal representation, comprised a large percentage of those Bush put to death, and in one particularly egregious example, Bush executed an immigrant who hadn't even seen a consular official from his own country (as is required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the US was a signatory). Bush's explanation: "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?"

Governor Bush also flouted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by choosing to execute juvenile offenders, a practice shared at the time only by Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Significantly, in 1998 a full 92% of the juvenile offenders on Bush's death row were ethnic minorities.

Conditions inside Texan prisons during Bush's reign were so notorious that federal Judge William Wayne Justice wrote, "Many inmates credibly testified to the existence of violence, rape and extortion in the prison system and about their own suffering from such abysmal conditions."

In September 1996, for example, a videotaped raid on inmates at a county jail in Texas showed guards using stun guns and an attack dog on prisoners, who were later dragged face-down back to their cells.

Funding of mental health programs during Bush's reign was so poor that Texan prisons had a sizeable number of mentally-impaired inmates; defying international human rights standards, these inmates ended up on death row. For instance, a prisoner named Emile Duhamel, with severe psychological disabilities and an IQ of 56, died in his Texan death-row jail cell in July 1998. Authorities blamed "natural causes" but a lack of air conditioning in cells that topped 100 degrees Fahrenheit in a summer heat wave may have killed Duhamel instead. How many other Texan prisoners died of such neglect during Bush's governorship is unclear.

As president, Bush presides over a prison population topping two million people, giving America the dubious distinction of having a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country. When considering that (based on 2003 figures) the US has three times more prisoners per capita than Iran and seven times more than Germany, the nation looks more like a Gulag than the Land of the Free.

The White House has also stifled investigation into the roughly 760 aliens (mainly Muslim men) the US government rounded up post-9/11, ostensibly for immigration violations. Amnesty International reports that 9/11 detainees have suffered "a pattern of physical and verbal abuse by some corrections officers" and a denial of "basic human rights."

Then of course, there's Guantanamo, where the US is holding hundreds of detainees in top secrecy and without access to courts, legal counsel or family visits. Add to that the thousands of Afghans and Iraqis the US has imprisoned (including a large percentage of innocent civilians) and countless US secret prisons across the globe, and it looks as if incarceration is the nation's best export.

While Abu Ghraib may have left administration officials falling over themselves with protestations of compassion, it's worth remembering that the Bush White House has fought hard against the International Convention Against Torture, especially a proposal to establish voluntary inspections of prisons and detention centers in signatory countries, such as the United States.

Put it all together, and last week's passage of the Military Commissions Act is ominous for those in the US. As Bruce Ackerman noted recently in The Los Angeles Times, the legislation "authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any protections of the Bill of Rights." The vague criteria for being labeled an enemy combatant (taking part in "hostilities against the United States") don't help either. Would that include anti-war protestors? People who criticize Bush? Unclear.

In 2002, wacko former Attorney General John Ashcroft called for the indefinite detainment of US citizens he considered to be "enemy combatants," and while widely criticized at the time, Congress went ahead and fulfilled Ashcroft's nefarious vision last week. Ashcroft had also called for stateside internment camps, and accordingly, in January 2006 the US government awarded a Halliburton subsidiary $385 million to build detention centers to be used for, "an unexpected influx of immigrants or to house people after a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space." New programs that require additional detention space. Hmm.

The disgraceful Military Commissions Act and the building of domestic internment camps are yet more examples of blowback from the administration's so-called war on terror, and we ignore these increasing assaults on our civil liberties at our own peril.

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20061005_NowThatYouCouldbeLabeledanEnemyComba tant.php

[GT40FIED]

It's nice to know I'm not the only one horrified by this. Of all the conventions to renig on I'm not sure the Geneva convention is one we want to back out of. This new law gives the president the right to interpret the rules of the Geneva convention how he sees fit which essentially means "torture away". He's only banned from mutilation, rape, and murder. Nevermind that torture is notorious for providing little to know useable intelligence. But hey...I'm sure there's a difference between regular torture and freedom torture. I miss my constitutional rights.

You know...I used to laugh when I'd read shit where people talked about America becoming a police state. Now it's not so funny. We seem to keep inching closer and closer.

[Robert]

It's nice to know I'm not the only one horrified by this. Of all the conventions to renig on I'm not sure the Geneva convention is one we want to back out of. This new law gives the president the right to interpret the rules of the Geneva convention how he sees fit which essentially means "torture away". He's only banned from mutilation, rape, and murder. Nevermind that torture is notorious for providing little to know useable intelligence. But hey...I'm sure there's a difference between regular torture and freedom torture. I miss my constitutional rights.

You know...I used to laugh when I'd read shit where people talked about America becoming a police state. Now it's not so funny. We seem to keep inching closer and closer.

I have come to realize that the media often predicts future events unfolding. I believe this is in an effort to accomlish the above. When I watch V for vendeta I just watched in horror. I too suspect the US gov't is heading in that direction.

What I particularly found interesting was the second article on disarming citizens.

Steve - we can agree on something, gov't has to change, military powers have to change adn they way large US corps must change as well.

[ChrisCantSkate]

yeah stuff like this is what i really fear, when you remove the fair trial and basic human rights we become what we say we hate.....

[GT40FIED]

You know...when wiretapping was all the rage, everyone said "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide". I always regarded them as idiots who never looked at history as a precursor (i.e. McCarthyism)...but now what exactly entails an "enemy combatant"? Dissent is a healthy thing...without it people would essentially be mindless zombies that exist only to promote a party agenda. But with one person and one party calling the shots as to who is and isn't worthy of such a title, everyone needs to be afraid. Now Bush could legally lock up virtually anyone who disagreed with him and torture them. That's unlikely since the public outcry would be incredible, but the fact that the possibility is even there is more than horrifying. There needs to be a law...whenever one party has the presidency, the other party controls the congress. I know that sounds odd, but when one party controls both you get ridiculously insane legislature like this passed.

Oh...and where the fuck was John McCain during all of this? Of all people, you'd think a Vietnam POW who'd endured unspeakable acts of torture would have pushed hard against this bill. But instead he knuckled under like some school boy bitch. What the fuck?

[Robert]

It's not one party based, its the entire government system now. Rebulicans or democrats; same shit.

I agree Steve, people dont seem to mind being watch/listened too. It would be amazing if an inoccent person was framed with editted voice clips of phone coversation recorded by a new wiretape. Then with the new legals in place that person would never have to see the public court and be locked up.

Seems to me that we're headed for something very different then first meets the eye with these new legals.

No one must ask. HOW BAD DOES IT HAVE TO GET BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING?

[GT40FIED]

Now that...is the right question. The problem is that most Americans don't pay enough attention to what their own government is doing to know and if they did know they couldn't begin to grasp how to act. They see the government as this massive entity that can't really be challenged without years of red tape. The funny thing is that it really only takes a large group of people making enough noise to get things done. The problem is that now, with this new bill signed into law, any members of a large group calling for governmental change could be "disappeared" without a trial, counsel, charges, etc. for an indefinite period of time. It's really a genius way to legitimize scaring people into keeping quiet. Just think about the next whistleblower who leaks a document unfavorable to the government. They'll claim it's a matter of national security and that the person who leaked it is an unlawful enemy combatant. No doubt Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are all hanging out in hell and kicking themselves for not thinking of this first.

[Robert]

Steve, you're in the right direction with this. I wonder how large the group would have to be for it to be a problem for them to all disappear.

What is the current size of all US Police, Military, Costguard, reserves and milia(sp?)?

[GT40FIED]

Well...I'm not even talking about the use of force at all. If that were the case, you'd need millions out in the street and the inevitable result of that would be a civil war as you're going to have to deal with all of the people who are frightened of change. At least frightened of change outside the way it usually happens in the US...through a flawed voting system and political kickbacks and backroom deals.

What you need is a large number of people from all walks of life...diversity would be key...voicing opposition. If you could get that then people in power will stop supporting others in government and without their support those people essentially have no power. What's ironic is that a government sanctioned "disappearing act" could actually work against the government. If someone who's high profile goes missing the people will see the possibilities of a law like this and start getting scared. I mean...if you're willing to take someone that people will notice is gone, who won't you take? Hopegully that idea will keep this bill at arm's length from the greater population. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Violent Apathy]

The military makes up about 2% of the population of the US.

[AzCivic]

so how does this include American citizens?:

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

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

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


Or did I look up the wrong Military Commissions Act?

[GT40FIED]

Maybe the new one is a revision. I know in the past it applied to non citizens, but the bill that recently went through does apply to US citizens.

[AzCivic]

are you sure? I don't have much experience searching through bills but this is the only thing I'm finding:

Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

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

[VR4_Craver]

Well, if you are doing things that the goverment thinks if a "hostile action" does it still consider you a citizen of the USA? Cause if thats the case then every un-lawful hostile action would make you all under this

[AzCivic]

you can lose your citizenship if you commit an act of treason, but it requires a trial and you'd lose your citizenship AFTER you commited the hostile action. so no you don't just lose your citizenship retroactive to right before the moment you do something wrong.

[VR4_Craver]

Im not saying that by doing something that five minutes before that you are a "hostile" Your not a murderer until someone you attempted to murder dies. Your not one just cause you shot someone or something.

[AzCivic]

you're trying to say that by commiting a hostile action you could lose your citizenship and be considered an alien correct? I just told you that you could lose your citizenship, but it wouldn't mean you somehow lost it before you commited the action which would be necessary to be subject to this Act.

[AzCivic]

so no proof that the statement "Congress recently handed Bush the power to identify American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants"

is actually true?

[GT40FIED]

Huh? What? I've been gone all day. Maybe I'll look into it when I get bored. Then again, I really don't see how the line you posted necessarily excludes US citizens. There really doesn't need to be anything about US citizens specifically written because, as the US government, they have a great deal of control over the citizens. However, arresting and detaining a foreign national is a lot trickier since there are special ways of dealing with foreign criminals (generally through some sort of consulate). Putting specific wording into a bill would eliminate that hassle.

[AzCivic]

Huh? What? I've been gone all day. Maybe I'll look into it when I get bored. Then again, I really don't see how the line you posted necessarily excludes US citizens. There really doesn't need to be anything about US citizens specifically written because, as the US government, they have a great deal of control over the citizens.

How does it not exclude US citizens? It's pretty simple, if you're a US citizen you are not an alien. It states in plain english who is subject to the Act.

So how does the gov't "have a great deal of control over the citizens"? What does that even mean?

[GT40FIED]

What I'm saying is that just because there is a provision specifying foreign nationals, that doesn't mean it excludes US citizens. I guess I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

As for the kind of control government has over citizen's, it's pretty far reaching. I mean...the stage was obviously set for a bill like this by the PATRIOT Act which repealed quite a few freedoms at the government's discretion. I mean you already had FISA for most of this shit...it was established a long time ago. Why go around them unless you wanted to cut out the middle man and do away with having to go in front of a court?

[AzCivic]

Why the heck are you talking about foreign nationals for? What does that have to do with US citizens being considered Aliens?

[GT40FIED]

Why the heck are you talking about foreign nationals for? What does that have to do with US citizens being considered Aliens?

Well...foreign national equals alien. A US citizen is not a foreign national (or "alien"). I'm not sure what you're reading or how you're reading...but I've already made the same point twice. If you still don't get it, just move on.

[AzCivic]

Me move on? You're the one not making any sense. You don't see how the term "alien" excludes US citizens when it states in plain english that they define an alien to be a person that's NOT A US CITIZEN.

[GT40FIED]

Ok...let me lay this out one more time. Since the bill was passed through the US congess and signed by the president of the US I think it pretty much goes without saying that it applies to US citizens and, as such, no special wording is needed to define that. On the other hand, when dealing with aliens (non-citizens), you have to include special wording due to legal issues that could arise with foreign governments that are unhappy when and if one of their citizens is detained (or "disappeared"). Does it make sense now? You're pointing to one provision made for foreign nationals and I'm saying that such a provision doesn't exclude US citizens...it just includes foreign nationals.

[ChrisCantSkate]

i read over most of it, im 99% sure it excludes us citizens. the only way you could include one is if they are labeled an enemy combatant. when it defines the authority that it gives it clearly states alien or enemy combatant(legal or illegal). in most legal document you cannot assume something because its not there, expecially when definitions are given and defined. now im not saying they couldnt rope a citizen in on this, but they muyst prove they are an enemy combatant otherwise they get a trial and any lawyer worth his salt will be able to prove your a citizen.

also this line confused me...

Since the bill was passed through the US congess and signed by the president of the US I think it pretty much goes without saying that it applies to US citizens and, as such, no special wording is needed to define that.

are you saying just because it went through congress and the president that it applys to us citizens? i hope thats not the basis for your argument because we do have this thing called foriegn policy which basically is how we deal with foiegn (not citizens) countries and foriegners. special wording is needed to define everything, every time. thats how the legal system works. once again.. im very confused to the meaning behind what you said about no need for special definition to define that..... left field

[GT40FIED]

Chris...how does what you just posted contradict anything I said? You said that the bill doesn't include US citizens unless they are deemed enemy combatants by the government. Since the government can, under secrecy, undergo it's own analysis of who and who isn't an enemy combatant, how does this NOT pertain to US citizens? And who gets to define "enemy combatant"? If it's Bush and his butt buddies, then anyone who has oppossed him for any reason at anytime anywhere is a prime target. Let's face it...this administration isn't exactly tolerant about dissent. Then again, they've always got the "blame it all on the guy before me" argument to fall on. Well...if they all weren't a bunch of rampant cocksuckers that might work.

Again...I'm confused. Yes, I am saying that because it went through congress and was signed by the president it does become a federal law that all US citizens must abide by. That is, after all, how laws are made. Failure to do so would almost certainly result in prison time...even if no one knows where you are. The idea of foreign policy is exactly what I was trying to explain to Rob. Special wording exists for special circumstances and foreign policy is one of those circumstances.

How is it so hard for you people to believe that almost every politician at any given time will fuck you in the ass without lube just for a little bit more power? This is true 10 fold of this administration and the fact of the matter is that you're allowing them to get away with it. Even if the bill didn't apply to US citizens (which it does), it's just wrong. When the question of "are we torturing people?" came up, the appropriate response should've been "how do we stop it and save face with the rest of the world?". Not "how do we make it legal?". The fact that this discussion is even taking place is a disgrace to this country. While every republican masturbates to the idea of this country being based in judeo-christian values, they seem to ignore the fact that tortue is among the most NON-judeo-christian things you can do. But hey...they support id because Bush goes to their church. Fucking wankers.

[AzCivic]

Again...I'm confused.

ain't that the f'ing truth. By your logic, since illegals can't vote then citizens can't vote because laws were passed by the US gov't thereby making everyone subject to them even though it states that such laws pertain to illegals (probably referred to as ALIENS!).

and now write another essay about why you hate republicans as if it pertains to the actual discussion of who is subject to the military commissions act.

ALSO NOTE it says ALIEN enemy combatants, not just ANY enemy combatant. Key word being ALIEN. You can obviously be an enemy of the nation and be a citizen but you can't be an ALIEN enemy combatant AND a US citizen.

What torture are you talking about? Deprieved sleep? Forcing them to listen to Michael jackson? Do you think these people are getting limbs slowly cut off or something?

[GT40FIED]

By my logic? You didn't follow my logic. In fact, you've never been able to follow my logic. You take what I say and run 10 steps ahead of me in the wrong direction. If you had correctly followed my logic, you would have concluded that just because something is inclusive of one thing does not necessarily means it's exclusive of something else. I really don't know if I can dumb it down any more than that.

Did I say I hate republicans? I searched my post for the phrase "I hate repulicans" and damnit if I couldn't find anything of the sort. Maybe that's because I don't hate republicans...well...not anymore than democrats, anyway. But let's face it, republicans are the ones who generally like to play the moral superiority card and the religion card. And, while this bill had some pretty strong support for dipshit democrats, the ones pushing hardest were the republicans. I seriously doubt that Jesus would've tortured anyone who opposed him. In point of fact, most people that claim to do things for biblical or religious reasons do them in stark opposition to what their religion teaches.

And Rob...please don't tell me you're dumb enough to think that our "interrogation techniques" (i.e. torture) are simply limited to sleep depravation and/or annoying music (although if we're playing Michael Jackson, I could get down to some Thriller). The bill opens up possibilities to anything but mutilation, rape, and murder. There's a pretty broad spectrum of discomfort in there like beatings and stress positions. Not to mention the fact that, like I've said before, torture is a notoriously bad way to gather good intelligence.

[AzCivic]

lol, dumb it down? your logic makes absolutely no damn sense yet you accuse me of not understanding. I guess if you keep writing it out eventually you and other weak minded individuals will believe it. The inclusive term alien EXCLUDES us citizens. A womens gym(restroom, etc) EXCLUDES men. The dean's list includes those w/ the proper GPA but EXLUDES those who don't. A singles group EXCLUDES married couples. Once again you latch onto some wording that you don't like and pretend that it could mean anything you want it to. Do you have to see a sign on a women's restroom that says "Women's Restroom, this means no men" for it to get through to you? Or are you smart enough to figure out that "Women's restroom" means only women. Like the term Alien means only those who are not US citizens. Face it, it's there in black and white for you to read so stop making shit up.

Once again you profess to have some great understanding of a subject I'm sure you know NOTHING about but have only gleaned any pathetic bs you can from whining liberal websites. If it was not effective than why the hell do it?!? For shits and giggles?? What would be a better way to get info from someone? Set them up at the Ritz and grant any wish they have? Really I'd like to hear your ideas on how to get info from suspected terrorists.

[GT40FIED]

Sure...because things like singles groups and dean's lists are equally as complex as senate bills, right? I mean really...you can't simplify everyday things and try to relate them to bureacratic bullshit like congress.

I'm quite sure I'm not really professing anything...except maybe that the notion we should torture folks is wrong. And what the hell is it with you and the straw man argument? "What would be a better way to get info from someone? Set them up at the Ritz and grant any wish they have?". Of course not. Don't throw out retarded ideas like that knowing full well no one is suggesting that. That is the essence of a straw man agrument. I'd actually consider torturing people if there were some sort of criteria, liability, or if there was a chance of getting a significant amount of credible intelligence. There's only one reason why anyone would make something like this a big secret...so no one gets blamed when they fuck up and either kill someone "accidentally" or when they torture the wrong person. "But Steve, there's a chance one of them might give up something credible so we have to torture all of them!!!!". Right...and if Bush died tomorrow we might have a chance at getting this country back on track. Neither is going to happen so what's the point?

[AzCivic]

All that to say: you have no proof whatsoever that US citizens are subject to the military commisions act and that well you really don't mind torture.

YOU WIN!!

[GT40FIED]

All that to say: you have no proof whatsoever that US citizens are subject to the military commisions act and that well you really don't mind torture.

YOU WIN!!

Rob...you may be the dumbest smart person I've ever encountered. Nowhere above did I state or even imply either either of your assertions. I got so sick of this that I actually looked up the Military Commissions Act and it states:

Section 948a(1) 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."


Section 948b states that "[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants." So the MCA's procedures apply only to aliens; not to citizens. Nevertheless, Congress has declared that persons falling into the definition in 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are aliens or citizens.

Happy?

[AzCivic]

lol, they defined the terms Alien and Enemy combatant seperately, so what! Like I've already said numerous times those who fall under this act are ALIEN enemy combatants, NOT ANY enemy combatants. I know you're not that stupid so please stop playing dumb.

you have provided no proof you're right about US citizens falling under this...and you STILL haven't.

you don't mind torture..."I'd actually consider torturing people if there were some sort of criteria, liability, or if there was a chance of getting a significant amount of credible intelligence. " you said you'd consider it if it met your criteria.

[VR4_Craver]

lol, they defined the terms Alien and Enemy combatant seperately, so what! Like I've already said numerous times those who fall under this act are ALIEN enemy combatants, NOT ANY enemy combatants. I know you're not that stupid so please stop playing dumb.

you have provided no proof you're right about US citizens falling under this...and you STILL haven't.

you don't mind torture..."I'd actually consider torturing people if there were some sort of criteria, liability, or if there was a chance of getting a significant amount of credible intelligence. " you said you'd consider it if it met your criteria.

This isnt evidence enough that everyone, citizen or alien can fall under this?

"Nevertheless, Congress has declared that persons falling into the definition in 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are aliens or citizens."

Did anyone see that a US citizen was arrested for treason? Kinda weird this bill is passed then people start getting charged.

[GT40FIED]

lol, they defined the terms Alien and Enemy combatant seperately, so what! Like I've already said numerous times those who fall under this act are ALIEN enemy combatants, NOT ANY enemy combatants. I know you're not that stupid so please stop playing dumb.

you have provided no proof you're right about US citizens falling under this...and you STILL haven't.

you don't mind torture..."I'd actually consider torturing people if there were some sort of criteria, liability, or if there was a chance of getting a significant amount of credible intelligence. " you said you'd consider it if it met your criteria.

*sigh*...let's go over this one more time. Article 948a defines the terms of an enemy combatant. It's non-descript as to who it applies to and is open to interpretation. Article 948b defines an alien combatant. The two are mutually exclusive. And I think you're also missing the bigger-picture fact that this whole thing is written to give the president the right to interpret it as he sees fit.

Do you know what a hypothetical statement is, Rob? The reason I ask is because the quote you stuck in there is a hypothetical statement. By using the qualifier "if" I thought I'd made it clear that, since those criteria will never be met, it's a moot point. What's the point of torturing people if you have to be held accountable and be right 100% of the time, right? That just takes all the fun out of it.

[AzCivic]

dear god is everyone here an idiot and can't understand simple english?? PLEASE tell me I'm not the only one here who can read and interpret a simple sentence.

Again for the slow:
`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

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


If I say there's a rotten apple on a damn table are you going to sit there and argue that since an apple is a fruit and rotten means something that is decaying then obviously it's a ripe apple? holy f'ing hell.

you can interpret the term apple however you want, a big apple, a small apple, a green one or red. But guess what it's still rotten. Now if you're still with me (I know it's complicated but hang in there) what if I say it's a foreign apple. Are you going to say "no way, the term apple doesn't mean it's from outside this country so its a domestic apple!"?? You're an idiot if you do, plain and simple.

Now tell me how the uber complex sentence of: "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter"
Just cannot be compared to the sentences I just stated.

you think TORTURE IS OK if it meets your criteria do you not? that is all I stated. So don't spout off like you're on some moral high horse if when it comes down to it you think torture is ok if the method meets your blessed approval. Btw how do you know how torture is handled? Once again you spout bs like you are a part of the goings on when in actuality you have no clue. Please reply to that last quesetion in your usual all knowing attitude that by your logic is must happen in such and such a way because you say so.

[GT40FIED]

0H N0z! mY R3@d1nG C0mpr3h3n$10n 1$ t3h suX0rz! R0b hAs sed s0!

Seriously though...you wanna talk reading comprehension flaws? You've completely ignored the fact that article 948a specifically states "unlawful enemy combatant"...NOT "alien unlawful enemy combatant". Provisions for that exist in article 948c. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. The term "unlawful enemy combatant" does not specify nationality, so how is it so hard to imagine that it's applicable to US citizens. You can keep pointing to 948c...but it's irrelevent when you look at 948a.

You've also COMPLETELY missed the point I was trying to make with my comment about approving of torture. You see...I know that the criteria I laid out will never be met by any government, so it's rhetorical at best. My intent was to point out the flaw in the entire idea of what we plan on doing. It's not so much that I'd be comfortable with the idea, but I'd be willing to weigh the options if the government had guidelines laid out and could be held accountable when they fuck up (and they will fuck up). How do I know how it's being carried out? Because the government has issued reports and people in the know have spilled the proverbial beans. At the time it was illegal, so instead of putting a stop to it like we should've done, we just went ahead and made it legal. I mean...what happens the next time an American is captured and tortured? Do we get to act all outraged? How can we condemn anyone for doing shit that we do ourselves? It's all a complete dunderfuck.

[GT40FIED]

Well...I'll be damned. This is taken from the actual bill itself...not a website giving it's perspective on the bill. Damned if I can find the word "alien" anywhere in there except where it EXCLUDES aliens. It also uses the non-descript phrase "any individual" or "an individual" several times. Oh...and notice how often someone's discretion comes up in there. I'm not sure we should be allowing the president to "determine" anything.

“(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 cobelligerents 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.

The document in whole pdf format can be found at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf

[ChrisCantSkate]

im missing the point here, so if someone helps a terror orginization they apply here, but you dont want them to? just cause they are a citizen? think of what the outcome really is

[GT40FIED]

Well the point really is that the bill allows the term "unlawful enemy combatant" to be applied as those in power see fit. Of course no one in their right mind wants anyone providing material or physical support to terrorist organizations, but those definitions are ill defined and even more problematic when left up to the interpretaions of men in power. Since the terms laid out are vague and non-descript they can apply to almost anything...from protesting the war to rallying people around an anti-government mindset. Is it likely? We'll have to wait and see. But at the rate people are being labeled "unpatriotic" for questioning our motives for going to war or speaking out against the current administration, I think people are perfectly legitimized in fearing a bill that could lock them up covertly on the president's whim.

[AzCivic]

0H N0z! mY R3@d1nG C0mpr3h3n$10n 1$ t3h suX0rz! R0b hAs sed s0!

Seriously though...you wanna talk reading comprehension flaws? You've completely ignored the fact that article 948a specifically states "unlawful enemy combatant"...NOT "alien unlawful enemy combatant". Provisions for that exist in article 948c. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. The term "unlawful enemy combatant" does not specify nationality, so how is it so hard to imagine that it's applicable to US citizens. You can keep pointing to 948c...but it's irrelevent when you look at 948a.

tourettes?

don't you get it? you're focusing on the list of definitions while completely ignoring what the ACT says who falls under it. Why is it so damn hard for you to understand that they defined terms seperately and then used them together in (get this) a sentence? I know it's not that hard to understand because when I first posted it you said something like "huh, that must be the old version, the new one does allow us citizens to fall under it" therefore by you reading that sentence you knew what it meant, now you're acting retarded citing idiotic reasoning as to why us citizens are under this.

Going back to my example, which I guess was to complicated for you.

A. Apple- a fruit that grows on trees in many parts of the world
B. Foreign- something that doesn't originate in this country

-What kind of apples do you use to make apple juice?

Foreign apples are used since they are cheaper.

AGAIN, are you going to say that even though they mentioned that they use foreign apples they could be using domestically grown apples because the definition for apple doesn't say apples must be foreign!? I feel like I'm teaching 1st grade.

be quiet about torture already, my point was that you began saying that "Torture is wrong, and that the US shouldn't do it" then come to find out it's ok with you if it meets your guidelines. THAT'S IT.

Well...I'll be damned. This is taken from the actual bill itself...not a website giving it's perspective on the bill. Damned if I can find the word "alien" anywhere in there except where it EXCLUDES aliens. It also uses the non-descript phrase "any individual" or "an individual" several times. Oh...and notice how often someone's discretion comes up in there. I'm not sure we should be allowing the president to "determine" anything.


aaaaaaahahahahah!!!! The term unlawful enemy combatants excludes LAWFUL alien combatants!!! oh no! All you did was point out who could be considered an "unlawful enemy combatant" which I'm pretty sure was done already. Again this definition is only part of what you need to know since those who are under this act are ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants. Stop picking words here and there and start reading.

Once again:
Ҥ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
“Alien unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in
section 948a of this title, shall be subject to trial by mili-
tary commissions as set forth in this chapter.

How can this be so hard to understand, it's right there in plain english. If the intent was to include US citizens WHY use the word "alien"?? It could've said just Unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in .... but NO they put the word "Alien" in for a reason.

[GT40FIED]

Sweet zombie Jesus...it's like screaming at a wall. Look...you can focus with laser-like precision on one point of this bill and say it proves a point. Or you can correctly see it for what it is by looking at the thing as a whole and for what it's intended to accomplish. As for focusing on a list of definitions...I'm pretty sure that list of definitions is what lays out the groundwork for the entire bill. So yeah...they might be important.

And I'll be quiet about torture when you get the fact that when I said what I said I was using the knowledge that those criteria would never be met. It's like saying "sure, I'd eat babies if I could fly to mars". Since I can't fly to mars and won't ever be able to, it's a moot point and I can't eat babies (which is a shame...they look tasty). Does it make sense now? The point is that America shouldn't use torture as a tool of intelligence procurement. If we do we've lost any claim to taking the high road and become no better than anyone else in the world that we label evil. As someone sort of famous once said, "America is great because it is good. When it stops being good, it will no longer be great".

[AzCivic]

That's crazy focusing on a section titled "Persons subject to military commissions" when trying to find out who is subject to military commissions. What was I thinking?

Lol, yeah it's the same thing except one is easily possible and the other is not and therefore just meaningless chatter. You don't know how torture is carried out and for all you know it does meet your simple criteria and if it does you'd be fine with it. Nice try though making it sound like you were really just kidding. I'd be all for taking the high road, but what if 9/11 (i know you think it's a conspiracy but forget about that for a minute and put yourself in the shoes of someone who lost their love ones) could've been prevented or at least part of it prevented by getting information from a known terrorist? Wouldn't you want to prevent the deaths of thousands? Maybe you wouldn't, but I think the pain and discomfort of a few is worth it.

[GT40FIED]

Look...even if you can't agree with me that this thing is worded to include US citizens, you at least have to know that sooner or later it will be "reinterpreted" to include them. It's quite possible that the reason we can't agree on what it says is because it was left intentionally vague for future revisions that will include citizens or so a court could declare citizens fair game. The very existence of this bill regardless of whether or not either of us is technically correct sets a dangerous precident and puts us on a very steep, very slippery slope.

I know torture was carried out and so do you. I can't imagine you missed the photos from Abu Ghrab (sp?). They were fucking EVERYWHERE. There have also been numerous reports from Guantanamo and other places (*cough*secret CIA prisons*cough*). While I'll admit that your question about 9/11 is intriguing (putting aside my own personal beliefs on the subject), it's somewhat flawed. First of all, who determines who is "interrogated"? I mean...if we're putting our reputations on the line by allowing torture we'd better be damn sure we've got someone with good intel. Second of all, how can you gaurantee that they'll even give up any info? I'm sure a large part of terrorist training is learning to withstand various methods of torture and interrogation. Lastly, even if they do give up intel, how can anyone be assured it's valid. Let's face it, we've got a track record of believing bad intel. We skullfucked a country who we *thought* had big bad weapons based on bad intelligence, but we're letting a country who's TESTING such weapons get off with a slap on the wrist. Face it...our foreign policy is fucked and this bill is just going to make us look worse in the eyes of the world.

[ChrisCantSkate]

steve you realize we have laws in place that do pretty much this for citizens, its called the espionage act(or somehtign along those lines.. i forget exactly) and you can be put to death for it. this seems more like a way to deal with foriegn policy. beleive me if you commit an act of terror or communicate about one with a terrorist group i dont want any loopholes for those people because they are "citizens". we have to have something on the books about "what to do when" and this is just that, it seems. its beena year or so since i took a law class, but im pretty sure thats who they are covering thier asses. by what your saying you think citizens should be able to deal/plot with terrorist groups and not have any consiquences for it.

this might be applicable to citizens, and if it is, so be it. sure its one of those "if you have nothing to hide you shouldnt worry" type senerios but at the same time we have executed/life time prisoned people for dealing witht he russians, cubans, germans, japanise, britsh, spanish, etc. this is nothing new except its a policy for dealing with foriegners. it dosnt have to apply to citizens because we're(citizens) are already under our gov'ts laws and have ones in place for these type of things.

[GT40FIED]

Well an "enemy combatant" doesn't exactly have to be involved in espionage or treason, does he? And you just know sooner or later people who leak unfavorable government information to the media will be labeled at best as traitors and at worst as enemy combatants. I'm not saying those in league with terrorists shouldn't be dealt with. They should be locked away in prison never to see the light of day again. But torturing them? That's a little far reaching...even for a country as arrogant as the US. Again, you can draw the comparison of someone who we capture and consider an enemy combatant and someone a terrorist group captures whom they consider an enemy combatant. According to this bill, both subjects will likely be treated equally so how will we ever claim to be the good guys? Yes, a terrorist group would likely be more harsh, but torture is torture.

If you really, truely, honestly think this is a scenario of "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about", I invite you to sit back and watch this whole thing spiral out of control. Anyome who believes innocent people will not be harmed under this law is either an idiot or they're lying to themselves. Maybe both. I mean...why not harm innocent people? Who cares? It's not like you'll ever be held accountable.

[ChrisCantSkate]

this deals with carrying out or planning military acts on the USA. i think that if your a citizen and do partake in anything falling under this bill it would be considered treason or espionage...

im not saying i like the "nothing to hide" philosophy, if anything im very against it, but c'mon

[GT40FIED]

Well...not exactly. I mean it says right in the thing that you just need to be part of or associated with an organization we've deemed to be hostile. It's a good idea on paper, but that also means potentially arresting people who haven't done anything. Not that I'm saying we should just sit around and wait until someone undertakes a hostile act to lock them up, but there should be some sort of system of checks and balances to make sure we've acted properly. Also, with our track record of misidentifying people we run a pretty significant risk of throwing the wrong person in jail. Since a lot of muslim names are fairly common do we really want to lock up some guy who hasn't done anything? I mean...sure, it might come out at trial, but he may never have a trial since this bill eliminates your right to a speedy trial.

[ChrisCantSkate]

every good idea on paper can sound bad in theory if you make it a conspiracy theory... what do you want them to do? make a better law then. make it bulletproof so no one who shouldnt get off does. make it so some asshole who dosnt give 2 shits about what we as a country believe in and how we do things dosnt get the good end of anything when it comes to our system. its about as good as it can be. if your associated with a "group" and are a citizen then how do you want them delt with? remeber this dosnt say it takes away the rights of a citizen, it outlines how to deal with an alien enemy combatant. nothing more, nothing less. dont make a situation out of something that may not even be there

[GT40FIED]

Ok...well...the problem is that it does apply to citizens. And it is talking about taking their rights away. It suspends your right to counsel, your right to a speedy trial, and through use of torture, I imagine it also eliminates your right against self incrimination. Oh...and that whole thing about inhumane treatment. Look...I don't think anyone's saying that people who mean us serious harm should be allowed to hang out on street corners and walk around as they please. Shit...I'm all for tossing them into the depeest dirtiest part of the most violent jail you can find. I'm just not sure letting our own government hook a car battery up to some guy's nuts is the best of all options.

[ChrisCantSkate]

and through use of torture
what? where did that come from? stick to facts, dont throw out bullshit cause you think its right, making stuff up makes everything else less credable. isnt that why you never believe anything you didnt conspire up?

also where in this whole thing does it say that it removes US citizens rights? as much as you want to think it implys that i dont see it. i understand where you are coming from, but we are already have our rights as a citizen as much as you want to disbelieve that. i see it not granting enemy conbatants the same rights, but no where do i see it saying it takes away citizens rights since it dosnt really apply to citizens directly. if you are an american citizen and in violation here, im pretty sure once again, by way of esionage/treason you loose your citizenship and go through the process via the old way we've had on the books for years

[GT40FIED]

What do you mean "where did that come from?"? That's the basic point of the bill...to give the president the power to interpret the Geneva convention as he sees fit.

Chirs...did you read the link I posted to the bill itself? It says, in part:

Section 948a(1) 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."

The term "a person" is all inclusive. It does not define nationality or citizenship. I'm sure Rob will start bitching about about article 948c where it defines what an alien combatant is, but that's a seperate subsection. So my question to you would be how does this section NOT deal with citizens? Yes, we as citizens do have some rights, but they're being slowly erroded. This bill just takes more of them. And while the acts specified in this bill might fall under treason or espionage, either of those allegations is a bitch to prove under old statutes. This gives the government a huge length of rope...and they'll likely hang us all with it. While it might not be a bad idea to make it easier to prosecute acts like this, stripping people of basic rights afforded at trial isn't the way to do it and neither is the idea of "coersion" that this bill would make legal.

[ChrisCantSkate]

well, you shouldnt associate with these people. we have much worse laws that our citizens have to follow that take away more basic rights when they arnt even hurting anyone, so this one dosnt really bother me. maybe it includes citizens, but they have to be labeled a enemy combatant through a process first in order to be subject to this,and if they are, then i dont really care how trhey deal with em. we put ted whatever his name was down for bombing the ok. building over a decade ago, he was a citizen/terrorist and he got the death penalty. would you have minded if they had to stomp on his balls once or twice because he wouldnt tell who was involved? what goes on behind closed doors can and will stay behind em, so we dont even know what really is going on, we can only speculate which will probobly be wrong. this just outlines how we deal with people in our contry with no rights.....

[GT40FIED]

You know...if someone is truely an enemy combatant, then yes...they deserve to be dealt with harshly. I'm not saying stomp on their junk...but there's a lot of grey area between simple imprisonment and junk-stompage.

As far as Tim McVeigh stands...as I recall there were no other arrests made aside from Terry Nichols in that case (the "Ted" you're thinking of was Theodore Kaczinsky...the uni-bomber). Even if we'd have tortured him, what's the point? There are likely a few million people in the US whose hatred of the government is almost at the tipping point for whatever reason. Ironically, most of these people make up the current administration's base so they're not going to get locked up unless they fuck up really, really bad.

My problem isn't necessarily with the idea of the bill...it's the methodology of the bill. The people it gives decision making power to have no right to be making decisions that effect anyone's lives. No one wants to give people who wish us harm a free pass. Then again, I don't want some dipshit who got his job because his daddy knew someone else's daddy deciding who gets the rack and who doesn't. Chris, of all people on this board you should understand how fundamentally flawed the system is and that sooner or later this bill will be used for unjust purposes. Regardless of whether you agree with it's words directly you have to know that eventually it will be used for the wrong purpose. That's how the US rolls. We pass vague laws and then turn them into abominations for political gains.

[AzCivic]

Steve, always with the conspiracy theories and the victim mentality. Are you ever going to grow up? Or are you going to hide in your make believe crazy land forever?

Also, you're making some arguments that are purely based on half-assed assumptions, you obviously did not read through what this act entails. So shut up until you actually read it. Or just read one definition out of many, over and over again ignoring anything else which might hurt your piss poor argument.

And regarding your reply to my last statement:
We can't agree because you're blind to the obvious. Being accused of being an enemy combatant is only half the criteria to be tried by a military commission. You pretend not to understand that, which is funny because like I said it made sense to you when I first posted the info. But since you are so easily brainwashed by anything anti-gov't you came up with an argument anyway.

Also, why are you telling me torture does happen? When did I say it doesn't? You want shit in war and prevention of terrorism guaranteed? Are you stupid? Nothing can be guaranteed, just like you can't be guaranteed of just about anything in life, so are you going to just sit on your ass in defeat? (Well if your a typical liberal supporter you probably would) Or are you going to do what you can with what you have?

Alert the militias our gov't is trying to protect us from terrorism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GT40FIED]

Christ, it's like trying to talk sense into a crying child. How can you say I'm only reading one definition over and over when ALL you've said is that simply because there's a clause for foreigners that it ONLY applies to them. I'm saying it applies to both, but since you've so shrewdly deduced with your non-reading of the thing I'll take your word for it.

"Oh no, he's a brainwashed anti-government conspiracy theorist! LOLZ!". Honestly, if it makes you feel better to think of me as some nutjob just so you don't have to formulate a decent rebutle, go ahead. I know I'm not and...well...I really don't care what you think of me. There's no conspiracy here...we're being fucked right out in the open. Hell...they even put it in a nice pretty bill for everyone to read. Nobody will, of course, because no one cares where this country is headed...but that's neither here nor there. If you're too ignorant or stupid to see that, it's not my problem.

It should be fun to watch the public reaction to the next American who's captured and tortured. We'll predictably act horrified and condemn whoever did it but we'll forget that there's some guy named Ahmed locked up in some cell with a pole shoved up his ass. Then people will likely start shouting "see! see! they're evil!!11!1one!". You know...like we don't do it too and even went so far as to put it into law.

I could go on, but I tire of this. I've got more important things to do...like play with my balls.

[VR4_Craver]

I could go on, but I tire of this. I've got more important things to do...like play with my balls.

muahahahahahahah:werd:

[AzCivic]

More kiddie replies lacking substance, how surprising.

[GT40FIED]

More kiddie replies lacking substance, how surprising.

I know...it's frustrating for me, too. I have to keep my replies on the level of your reading comprehension. That in itself is a full time job.

To be quite honest, if you're getting what you feel is a childish response, it's probably because you made a profoundly stupid comment.

[AzCivic]

lol, and the kiddie remarks keep coming.

out of curiosity how have I not make a decent rebuttal? You said unlawful enemy combatants can be anyone, I said yes they can, but alien unlawful enemy combatants can only be those who are aliens (as you might've learned in grade school the word alien describes what kind of unlawful enemy combatants we are talking about...reading comprehension anyone?). Since then you still haven't said much of anything other than the normal meaningless BS that you tend to spew at any chance you get.

huh, I was just reading about a U.S. citizen who is wanted for supporting the bin laden bunch, he's wanted for TREASON not for being an unlawful enemy combatant. Imagine that, he'll be tried in a federal court and the gov't will have to follow rules laid out in the constitution probably because (now this is just a guess) he's a US citizen. But according to you steve he would fall under this military commissions act would he not?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/11/gadahn/

[GT40FIED]

Ok...wait...I think we got twisted up somewhere. I'm not saying the phrase alien unlawful combatant doesn't apply aliens. That would just be dumb. My whole point was that the bill in it's entirety applies to everyone, not just aliens. I don't disagree that the phrase alien unlawful combatant applies solely to aliens. I mean...it's right there in the name.

I saw something about that story...but I don't watch much network or even cable news because...well...they're all biased assholes. Is he the one from California (I think) who appeared in some Al Qaeda videos? I really don't know enough about the whole thing to know if it applies under this standard or not. I do find it odd that he'd be the first person tried for treason since WWII and that the timing of his arrest just happen to coincide with this bill's introduction. Don't worry...I'm not going all conspiracy on you, it just seems like an ENORMOUSLY unlikely coincidence. Even if his involvement does make him a candidate for prosecution under this bill, the bill is open to interpretation and we can always fall back on old laws. Besides...it looks a lot better to trot some dumb son of a bitch out in front of cameras. If we'd charged him under this bill he'd have just disappeared. His family would probably be putting up missing posters as we speak.

[ChrisCantSkate]

huh, I was just reading about a U.S. citizen who is wanted for supporting the bin laden bunch, he's wanted for TREASON not for being an unlawful enemy combatant. Imagine that, he'll be tried in a federal court and the gov't will have to follow rules laid out in the constitution probably because (now this is just a guess) he's a US citizen. But according to you steve he would fall under this military commissions act would he not?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/11/gadahn/


thankyou thats what i was looking for, something along those lines. treason for citizens when they commit treason, who would have thought

[ChrisCantSkate]

"A charge of treason is exceptionally severe, and it is not one we bring lightly," McNulty said at a news conference in Washington. "But this is the right case for this charge."

If apprehended and convicted, Gadahn could face the death penalty.

but this is the right case for this charge. its like getting a speeding ticket on your bicycle or riding on the wrong side of the road, sure your breaking the law and technically they could try you as a car, but they dont since we have bike laws which better cover the situation.

[AzCivic]

Ok...wait...I think we got twisted up somewhere. I'm not saying the phrase alien unlawful combatant doesn't apply aliens. That would just be dumb. My whole point was that the bill in it's entirety applies to everyone, not just aliens. I don't disagree that the phrase alien unlawful combatant applies solely to aliens. I mean...it's right there in the name.

I saw something about that story...but I don't watch much network or even cable news because...well...they're all biased assholes. Is he the one from California (I think) who appeared in some Al Qaeda videos? I really don't know enough about the whole thing to know if it applies under this standard or not. I do find it odd that he'd be the first person tried for treason since WWII and that the timing of his arrest just happen to coincide with this bill's introduction. Don't worry...I'm not going all conspiracy on you, it just seems like an ENORMOUSLY unlikely coincidence. Even if his involvement does make him a candidate for prosecution under this bill, the bill is open to interpretation and we can always fall back on old laws. Besides...it looks a lot better to trot some dumb son of a bitch out in front of cameras. If we'd charged him under this bill he'd have just disappeared. His family would probably be putting up missing posters as we speak.

You agree that the term applies only to aliens yet you don't see how since that term describes who is subject to military commissions then only aliens would be subject to them???

Coincidence? Who cares? The military commissions act has nothing to do with him being charged of treason by the gov't in federal courts. Now you're saying it's not in the best interest of the gov't to convict someone using this act (a prime candidate as far as I can tell-other than he's a us citizen), then please do tell when you think it would be the best time. I know you have some V for vendetta type thing cooked up but lets stick to reality here.

[AzCivic]

thankyou thats what i was looking for, something along those lines. treason for citizens when they commit treason, who would have thought


yup, it's crazy I know. :eek:

[ebpda9]

with all the governent crap steve posted so far i think he should be moved to syberia or antartica if that were true

[GT40FIED]

Trust me man...there's a few million people they'd have to go through who are worse than me before I'd have to start worrying.

[KwikR6]

with all the governent crap steve posted so far i think he should be moved to syberia or antartica if that were true
racist!

[ebpda9]

racist!

i didn't rev my engine at him :D