Print Page - Military Commissions Act

http://www.cbsnews.c...in2097186.shtml

In this uneventful day, Bush signs into law Military Commissions Act, which according to Bush; "will save American Lives." It sounds nice. Bush claims that this is the most valuable tool against war on terrorists, but it seems ok for the suspension for Habeas corpus. here's a few examples.

http://en.wikipedia....ion_Act_of_1918

http://en.wikipedia....on_Acts_of_1798

http://en.wikipedia....tive_Order_9066

I'm willing to bet that in about 20-30 years from now some future president will probably rescind this stupid act.

youre right, non-military insurgents who shoot at our soldiers all day shouldnt be arrested, detained or tried

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Oct 19 2006, 04:42 PM)

youre right, non-military insurgents who shoot at our soldiers all day shouldnt be arrested, detained or tried

Motion seconded. All in favor say Aye.

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Oct 19 2006, 10:42 PM)

youre right, non-military insurgents who shoot at our soldiers all day shouldnt be arrested, detained or tried

http://en.wikipedia....ons_Act_of_2006

Perhaps if you have bother to read about it, you know that it has nothing to do about letting insurgents go without arrested, detained or tried.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 19 2006, 07:32 PM)

http://en.wikipedia....ons_Act_of_2006

Perhaps if you have bother to read about it, you know that it has nothing to do about letting insurgents go without arrested, detained or tried.

No he read it, you missed his point horribly.

You're right. I'm sure that these insurgents/terrorists/islamofascists did something to deserve to be jailed. These guys are detained and some for more than 5 years and they never been tried. That's what this Act allows.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 20 2006, 10:07 AM)

You're right. I'm sure that these insurgents/terrorists/islamofascists did something to deserve to be jailed. These guys are detained and some for more than 5 years and they never been tried. That's what this Act allows.

Who said anyone needed to be jailed, detained or tried? Please try to pay attention.

Are you talking about the main subject which is the Military Commissions Act? You're totally lost, or I missed (your) point because I can't read your mind. You have to stop smoking weed while going on this forum.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 20 2006, 10:33 PM)

Are you talking about the main subject which is the Military Commissions Act? You're totally lost, or I missed (your) point because I can't read your mind. You have to stop smoking weed while going on this forum.

Yes you totally missed Vader's point. It's ok. We are used to it by now.

Okay, I'm not reading your mind again. Tell what me what I am supposed to say, oh moronic one.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 21 2006, 08:25 PM)

Okay, I'm not reading your mind again. Tell what me what I am supposed to say, oh moronic one.

Just like usual. You do not have the capacity to comprehend so you resort to calling me names. How about you try not to be childish for a change?

I don't have the capacity to comprehend YOU. Instead you talk about my argument is flawed without providing any concrete evidence otherwise. I would like to see you to talk the subject at hand instead about me. That's one of the many reason why I call you moron. Now talk about this subject or don't say anything.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 22 2006, 05:13 PM)

I don't have the capacity to comprehend YOU. Instead you talk about my argument is flawed without providing any concrete evidence otherwise. I would like to see you to talk the subject at hand instead about me. That's one of the many reason why I call you moron. Now talk about this subject or don't say anything.

You have not earned the right to tell me what I can and cannot do. You did not comprehend LordVader's comment. Not my comment. You obviously do not have the capacity to understand much of anything. I have spoken my view on the subject at hand as well as Vader. It is you who has no idea what you're talking about. It's clear that I'm not the one that is the moron.

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Oct 19 2006, 11:42 PM)

youre right, non-military insurgents who shoot at our soldiers all day shouldnt be arrested, detained or tried

As english isn't my mother tongue, I'm not too familiar with all expressions, but when you say "tried", do you mean tried in a court? Because if that's what you mean, then that's the problem, they never let them defend their cases in a court. Or will the MCA allow that?

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 23 2006, 02:01 PM)

As english isn't my mother tongue, I'm not too familiar with all expressions, but when you say "tried", do you mean tried in a court? Because if that's what you mean, then that's the problem, they never let them defend their cases in a court. Or will the MCA allow that?

Yes he means tried in court and puggy's article lays it all out for us. It tells specifically what it intends to do.

Don't even know BCfosheezy is talking about but not about this topic at hand.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361740/

Looks like less than 10% of the people held in gitmo are going to get Military trials. That leaves more than 90% of the others are held indefinately without getting a trial of some sort. And thanks to the Military Commissions Act, it is legal to do so. So when Bush says, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice. I don't know where's the justice part for the 90% of the people held there.

FYI, I am not totally not against the Military Commissions Act, because I'm sure that some of the evidence that is not allowed in the US courts but is allowed by the Military Commissions Act.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 24 2006, 10:35 AM)

Don't even know BCfosheezy is talking about but not about this topic at hand.

I have definitely been talking about the topic at hand. You are simply not able to grasp onto what Vader and I were saying. Your feeble attempts at putdowns just make you look worse because you are demonstrating how much you lack in the comprehension department.

As far as I can tell, both you and Lordvader missed the point. I said earlier the problem with this act is the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment.

So when Lordvader said and idiot agreed on the quote "youre right, non-military insurgents who shoot at our soldiers all day shouldnt be arrested, detained or tried" That's not Habeas Corpus. I've said repeatly and repeatly (and idiot didn't respond) that these insurgents should get a trial if they are indeed guilty and shouldn't be held indefinately.

Idiot here didn't even bother to try to explain why 'I missed the point'. Just look at his reply to see if it pertains to this issue at all, or Idiot just want to talk about me.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 24 2006, 01:51 PM)

As far as I can tell, both you and Lordvader missed the point. I said earlier the problem with this act is the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment.

So when Lordvader said and idiot agreed on the quote "youre right, non-military insurgents who shoot at our soldiers all day shouldnt be arrested, detained or tried" That's not Habeas Corpus. I've said repeatly and repeatly (and idiot didn't respond) that these insurgents should get a trial if they are indeed guilty and shouldn't be held indefinately.

Idiot here didn't even bother to try to explain why 'I missed the point'. Just look at his reply to see if it pertains to this issue at all, or Idiot just want to talk about me.

Well I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I'll speak up for whoever the alleged Mr. Kettle is and address Mr. Pot(pug ster). The statements you didn't understand were these people don't feel there is a need to detain anyone at all, so they shouldn't have to seek release. It's not hard to understand. It's all right there. Black and white. It was agreed that the issue at hand is silly.

I am a bit curious about this fact. The detainees in question were captured rather than killed. Why do you think that is? Also, how do you feel about that fact?

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 24 2006, 08:47 PM)

The statements you didn't understand were these people don't feel there is a need to detain anyone at all, so they shouldn't have to seek release. It's not hard to understand. It's all right there. Black and white. It was agreed that the issue at hand is silly.

If the detainee is guilty, the US government should bring the detainees to trial otherwise why would they keep those people there? I have mentioned in the earlier article that over 90% kept in gitzmo are not going to a Military trials.

QUOTE

I am a bit curious about this fact. The detainees in question were captured rather than killed. Why do you think that is? Also, how do you feel about that fact?

I'm not the US government, maybe you should ask them.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 24 2006, 03:10 PM)

If the detainee is guilty, the US government should bring the detainees to trial otherwise why would they keep those people there? I have mentioned in the earlier article that over 90% kept in gitzmo are not going to a Military trials.

You obviously do not understand the purpose of a trial. It is to determine whether that individual is guilty or not. So if the person has to be guilty in order to be detained and tried, then why not skip straight to the punishment? Also, I hear everyone griping about the cost of the war. How much do you think trying each of these guilty individuals will cost? At whose expense?

QUOTE

I'm not the US government, maybe you should ask them.

If not being the U.S. government disqualifies you from stating your opinion on the U.S. government then I guess you have no right to post about it in these forums anymore. Answer the questions or stick by your rules and leave the forums clean of your U.S. political views. These are your rules... abide by them.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 24 2006, 09:28 PM)

You obviously do not understand the purpose of a trial. It is to determine whether that individual is guilty or not. So if the person has to be guilty in order to be detained and tried, then why not skip straight to the punishment?

If not being the U.S. government disqualifies you from stating your opinion on the U.S. government then I guess you have no right to post about it in these forums anymore. Answer the questions or stick by your rules and leave the forums clean of your U.S. political views. These are your rules... abide by them.

I talk about the topic at hand and you have to talk about me and take things out of context.

Since when did you became a moderator and tell me that I have no right to post in these forums or answer questions as you so wish. And now you tell me to stick to 'your' rules? Pathetic.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 24 2006, 04:52 PM)

I talk about the topic at hand and you have to talk about me and take things out of context.

Since when did you became a moderator and tell me that I have no right to post in these forums or answer questions as you so wish. And now you tell me to stick to 'your' rules? Pathetic.

I'm talking about the topic at hand and asked you a question and you will not answer it. I asked your opinion on something. You said you were not the U.S. government so you could not give your opinion. I simply remarked that you post about the u.s. government all the time and by doing so after stating what you stated was hypocritical. You said it all. Not me. I merely pointed out what you said. I never gave you any orders unlike YOU:

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 22 2006, 05:13 PM)

Now talk about this subject or don't say anything.

So how about you stop being a hypocrite and just answer the question? I mean we both know it's going to force you to say something that will immediately prove your whole argument wrong and that's why you won't state your opinion, but I really want to hear what you have to say.

At this point, I've got nothing to say to your rants.

It seems that you and LordVader'r take the Republican's stance of Terrorists is: 'If you don't vote for me, you are going to die by some terrorists in any day now.' While funds and manpower are siphoned away to 'homeland security,' many Middle size cities are reporting higher crime rates because of increased gang activity. In the mid 90's crime went down becase we put manpower and funds to crack down on crime, only to be taken away because of these so called terrorists threats. More people die every year because of gang violence than 9/11.

So you can pick your poison on whether to die down the street or someday by some terrorist attack, I would choose the latter.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 30 2006, 10:24 AM)

At this point, I've got nothing to say to your rants.

It seems that you and LordVader'r take the Republican's stance of Terrorists is: 'If you don't vote for me, you are going to die by some terrorists in any day now.' While funds and manpower are siphoned away to 'homeland security,' many Middle size cities are reporting higher crime rates because of increased gang activity. In the mid 90's crime went down becase we put manpower and funds to crack down on crime, only to be taken away because of these so called terrorists threats. More people die every year because of gang violence than 9/11.

So you can pick your poison on whether to die down the street or someday by some terrorist attack, I would choose the latter.

You are the one who rants. Neither I nor Lordvader said anything about voting for us.

We aren't trying to scare anyone, but these things have happened. The people responsible want it to happen again and have said so. You'd have to be stupid to ignore that.

I happen to be an administrator of 2 law enforcement agencies. You could not be any more wrong on this point. First let's look at the issue at a glance. You cannot protect your cities if you cannot even defend your borders. You won't have cities to protect. Homeland security is the #1 priority. Don't get that confused. #2 No money has been taken away from any law enforcement agencies. Your point is shot.

Also, law enforcement is a reactionary service. We respond once a crime has been committed. Our presence definitely deters some criminals because with out us you'd have chaos like you saw in New Orleans after Katrina, but that's a passive effect. We don't actively prevent crime, because we don't have the ability to predict the future.

If you think law enforcement can protect you on the street you're insane. We'll come take the report after they tied you up, raped you and robbed you IF they didn't kill you. We'll look for the guys after that, but it still happened. You're on your own no matter where you live.

Seriously mods, LOCK this. This is the most pathetic thread I've ever seen. And it'll go on and on, if no one locks this.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 30 2006, 06:28 PM)

You are the one who rants. Neither I nor Lordvader said anything about voting for us.

We aren't trying to scare anyone, but these things have happened. The people responsible want it to happen again and have said so. You'd have to be stupid to ignore that.

I happen to be an administrator of 2 law enforcement agencies. You could not be any more wrong on this point. First let's look at the issue at a glance. You cannot protect your cities if you cannot even defend your borders. You won't have cities to protect. Homeland security is the #1 priority. Don't get that confused. #2 No money has been taken away from any law enforcement agencies. Your point is shot.

Also, law enforcement is a reactionary service. We respond once a crime has been committed. Our presence definitely deters some criminals because with out us you'd have chaos like you saw in New Orleans after Katrina, but that's a passive effect. We don't actively prevent crime, because we don't have the ability to predict the future.

If you think law enforcement can protect you on the street you're insane. We'll come take the report after they tied you up, raped you and robbed you IF they didn't kill you. We'll look for the guys after that, but it still happened. You're on your own no matter where you live.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137625/

Boy, as an administrator and if you have a 'reactionary view' towards crime is wrong. True, that you can't stop every crime from happening, but you can take the proactive approach. Take an example of William Bratton, he was the police Chief of NYC and later in LA crime went down in those cities. With people like you working in Law enforcement, I know why crime is up.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 30 2006, 02:21 PM)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137625/

Boy, as an administrator and if you have a 'reactionary view' towards crime is wrong. True, that you can't stop every crime from happening, but you can take the proactive approach. Take an example of William Bratton, he was the police Chief of NYC and later in LA crime went down in those cities. With people like you working in Law enforcement, I know why crime is up.

Why do you think we have Call centers? We don't call people that are about to become victims. Instead, they call us. You can use the word proactive all day long but that doesn't counter my argument. Proactive is not prevent. Of course we're proactive. We do what we can but if someone wants to rob you, they are going to rob you no matter if you live here or in that guy's town. If you don't believe that, tell me what rock you live under and what you have to smoke down there. I am a realist. I have to be to do my job. If you ever met me in person, and actually had a real conversation with me and saw the community that my decisions impact, you would, without question have a different opinion. I take no offense because you know not of what you speak.

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 30 2006, 01:59 PM)

Seriously mods, LOCK this. This is the most pathetic thread I've ever seen. And it'll go on and on, if no one locks this.

You're not involved so why do you even care? You have nothing to add so basically you're just trolling. This forum is FOR discussion like this. Undoubtedly every thread you've ever participated in went back and forth just like this one. Although I will agree the topic was weak, you're not involved. Nobody is forcing you to read it, so calm down and troll in a different thread.

... LOCK THIS THREAD.....

At times I wonder why I reply as if this is an discussion thread or insult thread, especially from someone who considers him/herself as an expert Christian and Law Enforcer.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 31 2006, 08:33 AM)

At times I wonder why I reply as if this is an discussion thread or insult thread, especially from someone who considers him/herself as an expert Christian and Law Enforcer.

I wondered that as well from all your "moron" comments that did not belong.Quote me where I stated that I was an "expert" on anything. I simply used logic and again since logic does not agree with your argument you sway away from the discussion and insult me.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 31 2006, 03:37 PM)

I wondered that as well from all your "moron" comments that did not belong.Quote me where I stated that I was an "expert" on anything. I simply used logic and again since logic does not agree with your argument you sway away from the discussion and insult me.

QUOTE

Just like usual. You do not have the capacity to comprehend

QUOTE

Yes you totally missed Vader's point. It's ok. We are used to it by now.

QUOTE

Please try to pay attention.

QUOTE

you missed his point horribly.

This is your typical response. And this is your 'logical' argument. Moron.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 31 2006, 10:46 AM)

This is your typical response. And this is your 'logical' argument. Moron.

HAHAHAHA

Not one of those was a put down. Not one. Which one did you take offense to and I'll show you why it is a factual observation. It is not just me. I'll quote a few other members who have observed the same thing from you if you like.

QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 22 2005, 11:37 AM)

You got the village idiot pug_ster backing your smoke screens.

Taken from This thread.

The worst part is, he stands on the same side of the issues as you do in almost every case. Now that's bad. I'll keep going if you want. I'm not putting you down but you should realize..... it's not just me. It's everyone.

On the other hand, "Moron" is definitely a putdown. It doesn't hurt coming from you though

Edit: No these are not my logical arguments. These are comments that your replies has warranted. I will say something and you totally do not understand or grasp it and you call it "willy nilly" or "rambling". Just because you are not able to comprehend does not make it either or those.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 31 2006, 07:57 PM)

HAHAHAHA

Not one of those was a put down. Not one. Which one did you take offense to and I'll show you why it is a factual observation. It is not just me. I'll quote a few other members who have observed the same thing from you if you like.

'You do not have the capacity to comprehend' is not a putdown. uh ok.

QUOTE

Taken from This thread.

The worst part is, he stands on the same side of the issues as you do in almost every case. Now that's bad. I'll keep going if you want. I'm not putting you down but you should realize..... it's not just me. It's everyone.
On the other hand, "Moron" is definitely a putdown. It doesn't hurt coming from you though

Edit: No these are not my logical arguments. These are comments that your replies has warranted. I will say something and you totally do not understand or grasp it and you call it "willy nilly" or "rambling". Just because you are not able to comprehend does not make it either or those.

I don't know why you decided that you take a thread that I posted a year ago and start making a case about it. And no, I don't share xmedia2004's views.

You deny doing insulting me yet you do it. Those are your supposingly be your initial 'logical' response and now you said it is not. So I'm making an argument from a person who is changes his/her position all the time. At least I have a position in something, and you change your position all the time so you can make your so called 'non-insulting' comments. In the end, what am I supposed to call you? A flip-flopper? Probably in the State of denial.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 31 2006, 02:02 PM)

'You do not have the capacity to comprehend' is not a putdown. uh ok.

No, after I say things to you, you never understand and call it "willy nilly" or "rambling" as I've posted before, but you obviously did not have the capacity to understand that. It's not a putdown. It is a factual observation.

QUOTE

I don't know why you decided that you take a thread that I posted a year ago and start making a case about it. And no, I don't share xmedia2004's views.

You WOULD know if you had the capacity to comprehend because I explicitly stated that it was to show that I am not the only one who thinks this.

QUOTE

You deny doing insulting me yet you do it. Those are your supposingly be your initial 'logical' response and now you said it is not. So I'm making an argument from a person who is changes his/her position all the time. At least I have a position in something, and you change your position all the time so you can make your so called 'non-insulting' comments. In the end, what am I supposed to call you? A flip-flopper? Probably in the State of denial.

I did not insult you. Let's not forget, you're the one who has called me a moron the entire time. I have not flip-flopped. Anyone with any ability to comprehend can see that. That's obviously why you cannot.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 31 2006, 10:26 PM)

No, after I say things to you, you never understand and call it "willy nilly" or "rambling" as I've posted before, but you obviously did not have the capacity to understand that. It's not a putdown. It is a factual observation.
You WOULD know if you had the capacity to comprehend because I explicitly stated that it was to show that I am not the only one who thinks this.

Oh, from someone's opinion, therefore it is a fact that I share this person's opinion. Besides, there's OTHER threads that you didn't bother to read that I have disagreements with him. Didn't you 'blast' me from not using someone's opinions? Moron.

QUOTE

I did not insult you. Let's not forget, you're the one who has called me a moron the entire time. I have not flip-flopped. Anyone with any ability to comprehend can see that. That's obviously why you cannot.

QUOTE

You WOULD know if you had the capacity to comprehend

And you did not insult me, pleezzzzee. Yes, I did say you are a moron, because you make all those moronic statements about me instead of talking about the subject at hand. If it is an insult, fine, at least I was honest about it. Not like you who claim that you wouldn't hurt a soul, liar.

http://www.factcheck...article460.html

You remind me of those Republican politicans who stoop so low that that can't even talk about politics and issues at hand and you have resort to personal attacks by bring the name like 'xboxmedia2004.' Apparantly you and those politicans didn't know that lying was a sin.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 31 2006, 03:54 PM)

Oh, from someone's opinion, therefore it is a fact that I share this person's opinion. Besides, there's OTHER threads that you didn't bother to read that I have disagreements with him. Didn't you 'blast' me from not using someone's opinions? Moron.

AGAIN, you show your lack of comprehension. I was showing that I'm not the only one that thinks this way. I called you for stating opinions as fact. This is sad..... I pity you.

QUOTE

And you did not insult me, pleezzzzee. Yes, I did say you are a moron, because you make all those moronic statements about me instead of talking about the subject at hand. If it is an insult, fine, at least I was honest about it. Not like you who claim that you wouldn't hurt a soul, liar.

I didn't insult you. Not one thing I said was false or said to slander or misrepresent you. It was all earned from your comments. YOU make the moronic statements about me. That is why we are talking about this instead of the topic. I asked you a question that you refused to answer. Instead you chose to attack me. You cannot succeed and have made yourself look worse. You should just stop.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 31 2006, 11:11 PM)

AGAIN, you show your lack of comprehension. I was showing that I'm not the only one that thinks this way. I called you for stating opinions as fact. This is sad..... I pity you.

1) Just because one person's OPINION says that I agree with that guy, that is true?
2) Why did you bring this subject up?

QUOTE

I didn't insult you. Not one thing I said was false or said to slander or misrepresent you. It was all earned from your comments. YOU make the moronic statements about me. That is why we are talking about this instead of the topic. I asked you a question that you refused to answer. Instead you chose to attack me. You cannot succeed and have made yourself look worse. You should just stop.

Why don't you start reading the thread from the top? Who said that 'You have to pay attention', and 'you missed the point horribily' as the logical response. And you think it is not an insult.

You really are the worst kind of the liar. You lie yet you don't admit it. Just like those Republican politicans running the country today.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 31 2006, 04:17 PM)

1) Just because one person's OPINION says that I agree with that guy, that is true?

No. Like I've said several times, it is to show you that I'm not the only one that thinks this. Maybe since it's not just me you'll start to realize that maybe there's something to it.... but obviously that's not going to happen.

QUOTE

2) Why did you bring this subject up?

What? Lol I didn't actually bring any subject up. The quoted statement was in response to your attack.

QUOTE

Why don't you start reading the thread from the top? Who said that 'You have to pay attention', and 'you missed the point horribily' as the logical response. And you think it is not an insult.

Those are both true and are not putdowns. You did miss the point horribly and because of that need to pay closer attention. That's fact. It's not a putdown.

QUOTE

You really are the worst kind of the liar. You lie yet you don't admit it. Just like those Republican politicans running the country today.

HAHAHAHAHA... ok I'm sorry but this one actually made me laugh.

I haven't lied and you've failed to point anything out that even resembles a lie. All you have done is demonstrate your inability to comprehend what is being said.

And it'll go on and on and on....... on and on and on.....

BC: You're insulting absolutely all the time - NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. I bet they love you in the law enforcement for your attitude, I just SERIOUSLY doubt you're working as it.

Why don't you just PM instead if it's so important to continue this "fight".

^
+1

QUOTE(gronned @ Nov 1 2006, 04:02 AM)

And it'll go on and on and on....... on and on and on.....

BC: You're insulting absolutely all the time - NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. I bet they love you in the law enforcement for your attitude, I just SERIOUSLY doubt you're working as it.

Why don't you just PM instead if it's so important to continue this "fight".

It doesn't really matter what you doubt.

No I have not insulted anyone.

It's odd how you singled ME out but you said nothing to pug ster who calls me a moron constantly. It takes two. If he doesn't reply I won't reply. It's not a fight because I'm not attacking him. This is a discussion and if it bothers you, you should not read it. It is very simple.

QUOTE

I just thought I would take a moment to let you know that I am not trying to put you down in there. Yes, you and I disagree on everything. That's fine. You calling me names... that's fine with me too, but at the end of the day I don't hate you or harbor any kind of hard feelings towards you for your views or the things you say about me or your pnr views. I will continue to have discussions with you but just so you know, you don't have an enemy in me. Our discussions have become more and more heated as of late and I thought it was necessary to say that.

Have a good one. I replied

What a joke.

Here's an interesting article about some some Vietnamese Americans charged for treason in Vietnam.

http://news.yahoo.co...ietnam_us_trial

At least these Vietnamese Americans GET a trial and get kicked out from Vietnam. Even a communist country Vietnam is more compassionate to 'terrorists' than we are. It is sad.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 10 2006, 12:45 PM)

Here's an interesting article about some some Vietnamese Americans charged for treason in Vietnam.

http://news.yahoo.co...ietnam_us_trial

At least these Vietnamese Americans GET a trial and get kicked out from Vietnam. Even a communist country Vietnam is more compassionate to 'terrorists' than we are. It is sad.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions"). However, the rights guaranteed by the Third Geneva Convention (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#_note-2") [5] (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#_note-3")

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 (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act_of_2005"), and referenced in section 10 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. [6] (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#_note-4") 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] (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#_note-5") The criteria by which "another competent tribunal" might do so are specified Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.[8] (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#_note-6")

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.

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?

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.

xboxscene.org forums

Off Topic Forums => General Chat => Politics, News and Religion => Topic started by: pug_ster on October 18, 2006, 09:57:00 PM