Now That You Could be Labeled an Enemy Combatant

[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]

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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

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]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

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

muahahahahahahah

[AzCivic]

More kiddie replies lacking substance, how surprising.

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

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]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by ebpda9

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]

Originally Posted by KwikR6

racist!

i didn't rev my engine at him