Seething Anger!
This is ridiculous. I dont know about anyone else, but if you give a damn about where this country is going or what we have to look forward to then I strongly urge you to take a look at this post by a friend of mine. You dont like what he has to say, thats your choice but as I see it we the american people are getting ass-raped by our president
( Read more... )
1. Alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other triable offenses.
We’re not talking about everyday citizens here, babe. Not you, not me, not even Jose who took his citizenship test yesterday and passed. We’re taking about people who have made UNLAWFUL entrance into this country with the express purpose of acting against the US and its innocent civilian population.
2. Prescribes, with respect to each established commission, pre-trial and trial procedures, including charges, rules of evidence, pleas, opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence, and defenses. Requires: (1) a two-thirds commission member vote for conviction; (2) a three-fourths member vote for a sentence of life imprisonment or confinement of more than ten years; and (3) a unanimous vote by at least 12 members in a case in which the death penalty is sought.
It’s not as if they are not given any rights at all. Look how hard it is to get convicted… 2/3? You’ve larped… How hard is it to get 2/3 of people to agree on something? And ¾? Even worse. Unanimous voting would mean that those folks, educated, reasoning, professional folks, would have to be damned sure of their judgment. Those brought to trial under this bill are STILL given more rights than people in MOST countries. Do you think they would give our people the SAME process? Nope. They take you out back and shoot you… if you’re lucky. They are NOT citizens, and thus have NO rights under the law. Yet, we CHOOSE to grant them these rights, which is more than most would ever do.
I do, however, strongly disagree with them revoking the Geneva Convention.
3. Prescribes post-trial procedures and reviews of commission actions, including appeal by the United States, rehearings, and review by the Court of Military Commission Review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even after trial and verdict, they are granted appeal and rehearing. Due process is STILL observed.
*shrug* Make of it what you will… but under this verbiage and these terms, I don’t see a problem with this bill.
Reply
`(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.
`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.
`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
~~~
So yeah, not just illegal aliens ... anyone can fall under these terms.
Reply
Combatants are those who have acted with open hostilities. NOT those who just talk shit... or half the country would be in jail for subversion. In fact, if that were the case, Alandark and Wookie would be in jail just for posting this in the first place. Rather, it is addressed at those who have taken open action of hostilities or directly supported, knowingly, a hostile orginization, state, or movement.
They STILL have to adhere to trial procedures, still make a case with the burdan of proof. Now that I've read the text, I think you're confusing unlawful, hostile combatents with citizans. There's a HUGE difference there.
Reply
If a good number of us disappear without a trace - you'll know why.
Reply
/Quote:
Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."
The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq.
It does apply to 14 suspects who were secretly questioned by the CIA overseas and recently moved to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
/endquote
Pay special attention to Paragraph 2, here I will repeat it for you just in case:
"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Opinions... you know what they say about those. People are more than entitled to them, but I don't have to agree with them, and I don't agree with him. *shrug*
Reply
"one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." OPINION
"We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." OPINION
"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court." FACT
"And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death." FACT
Reply
Reply
So if I say England and Tony Blair can suck my balls and gag on them, I've just made myself eligible to be declared an unlawful enemy combatant because I have purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents.
Are you really comparing the government buying your land at a huge discount from market value and them snatching you off the street and making you disappear?
Reply
I don't think you believe that if you went over to the Middle East and started dissing Alah... that you'd make it five seconds with your head still perched upon your shoulders. We give their folks more rights by far than they would ever grant us in the same place.
This bill is not about destroying UC citizans, and deciding to buy into the whole 'fear the big bad evil of the government' is just overreacting. I don't unedrstand why people want SO BADLY to hate their own government, their own people.
Reply
Moreso...why does the fact that they would shot us in a heartbeat justify us doing the same thing?
Reply
Amen to that!
Defending atrocity by stating, "I'm not as bad as so and so" is the worse cop-out ever. An atrocity is an atrocity.
Reply
I just can't condone the "drop to their level" mentality, we are supposed to be the model that the rest of the world aspouses to. Is that really what democracy is about, taking civil liberties away as we see fit? Because how can we go around "spreading democracy" at gunpoint if all we're saying is "change who's running your country"?
Reply
But, if you look at the text from the law, they DO have leagle rights and due process... at least once detained. Before that... *sigh* I just don't know.
And I agree 100% about taking civil liberties. You KNOW I'm against that. I'm pro small government and anti 'legislate everything'.
It's one fucked up mess... and I hate all of it. I really, really do.
Reply
Leave a comment