Now That You Could be Labeled an Enemy Combatant

[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.

[AzCivic]

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.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

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

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by ChrisCantSkate

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.