Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.