Print

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 10 2006, 10:34 PM)

I'm not going to carry on in this thread any further. I will never understand why you hate those that want to protect you and fight and snarl your way to protect those that want to kill you. If anything is sad.... it is that.

You with that Bush's propaganda of fear and hatred and do anything to stop it.  All Bush did is spread fear and hatred towards Muslims and this hatred will resonate for this generation to come.  

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 10 2006, 04:20 PM)

You with that Bush's propaganda of fear and hatred and do anything to stop it. All Bush did is spread fear and hatred towards Muslims and this hatred will resonate for this generation to come.

I really don't want to post here anymore but once I see something like this I have to. It's a blatant lie. Even if Bush wanted to he couldn't spawn hatred for Muslims. It's the extremist Muslims that spawned the hatred for them when they decided to take Muhammad's words literally and decided to cleanse the world of infidels. Seriously, if you have an honest point, I will just stop posting.... but please stop blatantly lying.

[pug_ster]

Uh huh.  Think of this.  After the civil war, the KKK rose up and said 'beware of black people who will take your land and home.'  During the depression era, Hitler rose to power he blamed on the Jews for 'stealing their wealth.'  And even FDR and their propagandists for blaming the Japanese Americans for spying on US.  Should we hate the blacks, Jews or the Japanese?  No, the problem is the spreaders of hate and fear.

You ever think about Bush's speeches for the past 4 years about the 'faceless killers' or 'islamofascists' who just happened to be Muslims?  As a result of this blind fear, it is easy to justify to jail these people without giving them a trial.  It is easy to say if we don't do something about these 'terrorists', we will die tomorrow.  The problem is not the Muslims, the problem is with Bush, because he is the seed of fear.

I'm sure that those 'islamofascists' hate US enough so that they want to kill US.  But we must differentiate them between the 99%+ of muslims who don't share their views.  You probably don't agree what I just said.  I'm sure that the 'cloak of fear' has blinded you.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 10 2006, 06:26 PM)

Uh huh. Think of this. After the civil war, the KKK rose up and said 'beware of black people who will take your land and home.' During the depression era, Hitler rose to power he blamed on the Jews for 'stealing their wealth.' And even FDR and their propagandists for blaming the Japanese Americans for spying on US. Should we hate the blacks, Jews or the Japanese? No, the problem is the spreaders of hate and fear.

You ever think about Bush's speeches for the past 4 years about the 'faceless killers' or 'islamofascists' who just happened to be Muslims? As a result of this blind fear, it is easy to justify to jail these people without giving them a trial. It is easy to say if we don't do something about these 'terrorists', we will die tomorrow. The problem is not the Muslims, the problem is with Bush, because he is the seed of fear.

I'm sure that those 'islamofascists' hate US enough so that they want to kill US. But we must differentiate them between the 99%+ of muslims who don't share their views. You probably don't agree what I just said. I'm sure that the 'cloak of fear' has blinded you.

 

I don't agree with you. I have not been blinded. I'm not sure what has blinded you. I don't know any Americans that have anything at all against Muslims. I think you're delusional. By not eluding to "Muslims" as a whole either explicitly or implicitly the speeches you refer to totally rebuke your whole claim.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Nov 11 2006, 10:45 AM)

You don't know a few? I know haters of all races, creatures.

Well my family is not racist and the people I work with in law enforcement do not speak of it if they are.

QUOTE

The Military Commissions Act is an all out assault on civil liberties. It will be used effectively against known undesirables but when the dust settles and the enemies conform, become incarcerated or killed what will happen to the MCA?

It will deal with the next batch of terrorists that it applies to. Here it is for anyone that's actually buying into these guys BS.

 

CODE

Section 948b of title 10 of the United States Code, as enacted by the Act, provides (in part):

[indent](a) Purpose.--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

[/indent]Section 948d of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, providing for the jurisdiction of military commissions, states (in part):

[indent]A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

[/indent]Section 948a of title 10 of the United States Code, as added by the Act, defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as:

[indent]`(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

[/indent][indent]`(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.

[/indent]Section 948c of title 10 U.S.C., as added by the Act, states, "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter" - with "alien" defined in section 948a(3) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States".

A "competent tribunal" is defined in the US Army field Manual, section 27-10, for the purpose of determining whether a person is or is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and consists of a board of not less than three officers. It is also a term defined in Article five of the third Geneva Convention. However, the rights guaranteed by the Third Geneva Convention to lawful military combatants are expressly denied to unlawful military combatants for the purposes of this Act by Section 948b:

`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

[4] [5]

The criteria by which a Combatant Status Review Tribunal might determine someone to be an unlawful enemy combatant under section ii of the definition are provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and referenced in section 10 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. [6] The Combatant Status Review Tribunal is be composed of three neutral officers, none of whom was involved with the detainee. One serves as a judge advocate, and the senior ranking officer serves as the president of the tribunal. Detainees may testify before the tribunal, call witnesses and introduce any other evidence. Following the hearing the tribunal will determine in a closed-door session whether the detainee is properly held as an enemy combatant.[7] The criteria by which "another competent tribunal" might do so are specified Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.[8]

If you read that little blurb it very specifically limits the people it can be applied to. It is not vague. I cannot be applied to an everyday citizen. All you have to do is read that to know. These people are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and protect the terrorists. That's the bottom line.

 

QUOTE

As history has proven, knee jerk laws that are supposed to protect us are turned against us.

Knee-jerk replies where you don't know what you're talking about are more easily turned against you but now you've got my interest. Name a law that was supposed to protect us but was turned against us.

 

[pug_ster]

Unfortunately, this act didn't apply to Jose Padilla, I'm not defending that guy, but this didn't got thrown to jail with a damn trial.  If this person is guilty as is, why don't this person get a proper trial and thrown to jail for life?

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 11 2006, 05:36 PM)

Unfortunately, this act didn't apply to Jose Padilla, I'm not defending that guy, but this didn't got thrown to jail with a damn trial. If this person is guilty as is, why don't this person get a proper trial and thrown to jail for life?

Well Here is an article that is a little more specific as to why he was detained. As for why he was never tried... I'm not really sure. Let me give you a scenario so you may be able see another point of view.



Let's say you're a CIA operative. You've been tracking a known criminal turned extremist around and tracked him to an al queda camp. You know he received training in bomb making and you know he holds a passport and has plenty of motive and opportunity to do these acts he's just been taught to carry out. You are the only witness. In order to bring this guy to trial you have to testify and are no longer able to use your inside advantage as being trusted.



That's just one example. We don't really know. It's good that there are people concerned because we can never fall asleep and simply trust our government, but on the other hand there could potentially be good reasons for things like this. We won't know until it's over

I don't know what reason the government would have to randomly imprison someone unless there were good reasons for their actions. It's costing money and votes.