Now That You Could be Labeled an Enemy Combatant

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

*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.