Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.