Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
new bush terror detainee bill makes george king...
    #5909835 - 07/28/06 07:30 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

no phred..the the article below does not contain the title..but even you would be hard pressed to argue that it could mean anything else..since under the conditions of this proposal..anybody could be simply be disappeared off the street as an "enemy combatant" ..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights

Quote:

Bush submits new terror detainee bill

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 9 minutes ago

U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.

Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.

Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court — and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.

The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.

"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.

The draft proposal contends that an existing law — passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. — that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. John W. Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.




the draft [PDF] is available at ..

http://balkin.blogspot.com/PostHamdan.Bush.Draft.pdf

this bill will sail quickly through congress without so much as a change in punctuation..unless the congressional repugnicans mean to give the executive even more power...and by the time it gets to the SCOTUS..there will be at least one more bush lackey to rubber stamp it there...now can we call it fascism??...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Edited by Annapurna1 (07/28/06 09:25 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineictoasnrnsigwt
Weirder
Registered: 03/30/06
Posts: 136
Last seen: 15 years, 28 days
Re: bush "hamdan fix" makes george king... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #5909886 - 07/28/06 07:54 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

yes we can call it facism now IMO. I'm sure if this passes they will abuse the power of it and acuse people like protesters of being terrorist just so bad word doesn't get spread as easily. Will the government ever stop thinking it's above the law?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: bush "hamdan fix" makes george king... [Re: ictoasnrnsigwt]
    #5909968 - 07/28/06 08:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

its not a question of "if" this shit passes...im almost willing to bet the farm that it will pass..at which point the law will be that the govt is above the law...and im not even sure that the concept of "law" could even apply in that case...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestantonfreedom
Stranger
Registered: 05/11/06
Posts: 27
Re: bush "hamdan fix" makes george king... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #5910202 - 07/28/06 09:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I remember reading something a long time ago. I think it was called the constitution or something. Boy do I miss that thing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: new bush terror detainee bill makes george king... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #5910702 - 07/28/06 11:53 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

And once again Annapurna1 not only fabricates a completely misleading headline for her thread (thus continuing her traditional inaccurate scaremongering), she also doesn't bother to actually read the source document she provides a link to. Why bother to read the actual deliberative draft legislation explicitly designated as being for discussion purposes only, after all, when you can instead be brainwashed by famed Constitutional scholar Anne Plummer Flaherty of Associated Press and various "legal experts" who also can't be bothered to read the draft legislation.

You'd better hope the bill sails through Congress without so much as a change in punctuation, Anna, because that way US citizens (even traitorous ones who fight with Al Qaeda against the US) will be exempt from the legislation.

Although the reproduced .pdf file is of less than perfect quality, it is definitely legible, and a reading of just the first half dozen pages show the care the drafters have taken to make absolutely certain no one (other than Annapurna and the Associated Press nitwit she quotes) could possibly mistake it as legislation which applies to US citizens. Let's take a look, shall we?







"For Discussion Purposes Only
Deliberative Draft
Close Hold

"Chapter 1
SECTION 102 FINDINGS

(4)Exercising authority vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the Authorization for use of Military Force Joint Resolution, and in accordance with the laws of war, the President has (A) detained enemy combatants in the course of this armed conflict, and (B) issued the Military Order of November 13, 2001 to govern the "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War against Terrorism," which authorized the Secretary of Defense to establish military commissions ...snip..."

"(5)...snip...The Congress may by law, and does by enactment of this staute, eliminate any deficiency of statutory authority to facilitate bringing alien combatants with whom the United States is engaged in armed conflict to justice for violations of the laws of war and other crimes triable by military commissions. The prosecution of such alien enemy combatants by military commissions established and conducted consistent with this Act fully complies with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, treaties to which the United States is a party, and the laws of war."

"(6) ...snip... In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practical nor appropriate for alien enemy combatants like Al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in Federal courts or courts-martial."

"(7) Many procedures for courts martial would not be practicable in trying alien enemy combatants for whom this Act providesfor trial by military commission. ...snip...

"SEC. 103 DEFINITIONS

As used in this Act:

(1) "alien enemy combatant" means an enemy combatant who is not a citizen of the United States

"Sec. 104 AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

(a) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of alien enemy combatants for the violation of the laws and customs of war and other crimes triable by military commissions as provided in chapter 2 of this Act. ...snip...

"CHAPTER 2 -- MILITARY COMMISSIONS

SEC. 201 MILITARY COMMISSIONS GENERALLY

(a) PURPOSE -- This chapter codifies and establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien enemy combatants for violations of the laws of war and any other crimes triable by military commissions. ...snip..."

"SEC. 202 PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY COMMISSIONS

Alien Enemy combatants, as defined in section 102 of this Act, shall be subject to trial by military commissions as set forth in this chapter."








There's more -- lots more -- but since it is a photocopied document it cannot be cut and pasted and I'm tired of transcribing it. Those interested in actual fact rather than paranoid fantasy can read it for themselves if they wish. I've provided more than enough for y'all to get the drift -- the freaking bill is specifically designed to handle freaking alien enemy combatants, not US citizens.

I suspect the section which has the AP and its flunkies in an uproar is a reminder of well established law for which there is millennia of international precedent, and which was included for the sole purpose of differentiating confinement by sentence of the described military commissions rendered against alien enemy combatants versus detention of any and all enemy combatants in detention camps such as Guantanamo (or wherever they move the detainees to if the chattering classes ever do manage to buffalo the US into closing Gitmo) for the duration of hostilities.

This bit of boilerplate -- which, by the way, was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 2006 -- is to be found in SEC 104 (e):

"Pursuant to the President's Authority under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the Authorization for use of Military Force Joint Resolution, and in accordance with the law of war, the United States has the authority to detain persons who have engaged in unlawful belligerence until the cessation of hostilities. The authority to detain enemy combatants until the cessation of hostilities is wholly independent of any pretrial detention or sentence to confinement that may occur as a result of a military commission. An enemy combatant may always be detained, regardless of the pendency or outcome of a military commission until the cessation of hostilities as a means to prevent their return to the fight."

This bit was added not because it is legally necessary (detention of enemy combatants being standard practice since time immemorial -- at least those who were neither executed or sold into slavery), but to make it abundantly clear that just because an alien enemy combatant -- the only people covered by the legislation in question, remember -- may be acquitted of the charges brought against him by the military commissions described in the legislation (the potential charges are listed later in the legislation and include the usual war crimes laundry list), he isn't released, he is merely returned to the general population of the prison camp.

It is a standard example of the "dotting of "i"s and crossing of "t"s kind of redundancy so beloved by legislators everywhere, but it certainly writes no new law.

And it certainly doesn't make George Bush "King".




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5911579 - 07/29/06 10:19 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

phred was apparently not paying much attention when he read the PDF...had he been paying attention..he would have noticed that the language that would limit its application to foreign terrorists is consistently struck over in favour of language that makes it entirely the executives' choice...for example..in the very first senetance.."terrorists" is struck over in favour of the much broader "enemy combatants"...similarly on p2 paragraphs (5) and (6).."alien" preceeding "enemey combatants" is again struck out.. and also notice the clause struck out in paragraph (6)...

with the strike-outs removed..paragrpah (6) reads ..

Quote:

the use of military comissions is particularly important because [strkeout] other alternatives such as the use of federal courts or courts-martial are impracticable...the terrorists with whom the united states is engaged in armed conflict have demonstrated a commitment to the destruction of the united states and its people..to violation of the laws of war..and to the abuse of american legal processes...in a time of ongoing armed conflict..it is neither practicable nor appropriate for [alien struck out] enemy combatants like [italics mine] al qaeda terrorists to be tried like american citizens in federal courts or courts-martial...




with the strikouts removed..the first sentance becomes a virtual declaration that the current legal system is "impracticable"...and when terrorists are specifically mentioned..they are used as strictly examples rather than as limiting conditions...

and doubtless there are many other such examples in the draft..which make it applicable to anyone that the executive deems an "enemey combatent"..arbitrarily or otherwise...

or in other words..king george...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Edited by Annapurna1 (07/29/06 10:29 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: bush "hamdan fix" makes george king... [Re: stantonfreedom]
    #5911601 - 07/29/06 10:28 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

stantonfreedom said:
I remember reading something a long time ago. I think it was called the constitution or something. Boy do I miss that thing.




unfortunately..john yoo has also read it too...and unlike me..john yoo can claim to be a legal expert.. and prof yoo claims that the US constitution gives the executive plenary power under a permanent state of war...and i dont care what zappa says..but i cannot accept that yoo is acting in his capacity as a law professor when he makes such a claim...OTOH..as zappa points out..90% of the population disagrees with me on that point among others...

EDIT ..the SCOTUS has not accepted yoos' argument..but that wont stop congressional repugnicans from making it the law...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Edited by Annapurna1 (07/29/06 10:48 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #5911963 - 07/29/06 12:49 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

phred was apparently not paying much attention when he read the PDF...had he been paying attention..he would have noticed that the language that would limit its application to foreign terrorists is consistently struck over in favour of language that makes it entirely the executives' choice...for example..in the very first senetance.."terrorists" is struck over in favour of the much broader "enemy combatants"...similarly on p2 paragraphs (5) and (6).."alien" preceeding "enemey combatants" is again struck out.. and also notice the clause struck out in paragraph (6)...




Well son of a gun! The .pdf is of abysmal quality, but if I zoom in really tightly on the parts to which Anna refers, it is possible to make out what appear to be deliberate strikeouts rather than just artifacts of the copying process. It appears someone has indeed struck out the instances of "alien" in the deliberative draft she mentions. It is hard to say for sure, but it is possible that EVERY instance of "alien" has been struck through. It also appears that someone has underlined a few sections of the draft. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine if it is the same someone who did both the strikeouts and the underlining.

My bad for not having zoomed in a lot closer from the beginning. Anna's eyes are better than mine (or she has a better computer monitor. Or both).

This doesn't change the fact that enemy combatants of all stripes (both lawful and unlawful) are routinely held for the duration of hostilities, nor does it change the fact that it is possible for someone who holds US citizenship to properly be designated an enemy combatant.

And of course, it is also obvious that the bill is in its early stages. The phrase typed at the top of each and every page of the draft --

"For Discussion Purposes Only
Deliberative Draft
Close Hold"

is the tipoff, as are the strikeouts and underlines -- presuming the strikeouts and underlining were done by the drafters of the bill.

And of course the language of the bill in no way suggests "anybody could be simply be disappeared off the street as an "enemy combatant". By now even Annapurna1 is aware that all the detainees held in Gitmo (for example) have appeared in front of military tribunals to determine whether or not they could be accurately classed as enemy combatants, and those who didn't meet that classification (and even many who DID) have been released.

Finally, the bill -- even if passed exactly the way it appears in the .pdf file -- doesn't make Bush "king". At most it addresses the objections SCOTUS raised in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 2006 -- i.e. it codifies in a law passed by Congress what rational people already understand -- that war criminals should not be tried in the civilian court system.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTrepiodos
Disgustipated
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/30/06
Posts: 469
Loc: Los Angeles County Jail
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5913460 - 07/29/06 11:12 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

It should be noted that a while back, our friends the feds were talking about revoking U.S. citizenship at the discretion of the executive branch. Should this come about... well, you can put two and two together. Let's just say that the hallmark of the U.S. government has been and continues to be a creeping totalitarianism. What they can't get through in one bill, they slip into another and the pieces gradually come together. Rome wasn't built in a day. The foundations are being constructed, brick by brick. I wonder how Hillary would use these powers...


--------------------

And as things fell apart,
Nobody paid much attention...

- David Byrne, '(Nothing But) Flowers' from the Talking Heads' album, 'Naked'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Trepiodos]
    #5913602 - 07/30/06 12:04 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

t should be noted that a while back, our friends the feds were talking about revoking U.S. citizenship at the discretion of the executive branch. Should this come about... well, you can put two and two together.




And should you grow a pair of breasts you'd be a woman.

By all means, let's obsess about things that might come about, just because some politicians muse about it.

Would you care to explain just what is so "totalitarian" about trying alleged war criminals by military commission rather than in the civilian court system?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5913677 - 07/30/06 12:50 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Finally, the bill -- even if passed exactly the way it appears in the .pdf file -- doesn't make Bush "king". At most it addresses the objections SCOTUS raised in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 2006 -- i.e. it codifies in a law passed by Congress what rational people already understand -- that war criminals should not be tried in the civilian court system.




first of all..their not "war criminals" until they have been convicted as such..until then..they are simply "EPOWs"...one of the big problems with this bill is that it would virtually make them "war criminals" right off the bat..since my understanding (which may be wrong) is that the SCOTUS found in hamdan that those military tribunals are not legally "due process" for conviction as a war criminal ..

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=05-184

Quote:

The phrase "all the guarantees ... recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is not defined, but it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of the trial protections recognized by customary international law. The procedures adopted to try Hamdan deviate from those governing courts-martial in ways not justified by practical need, and thus fail to afford the requisite guarantees. Moreover, various provisions of Commission Order No. 1 dispense with the principles, which are indisputably part of customary international law, that an accused must, absent disruptive conduct or consent, be present for his trial and must be privy to the evidence against him.






Quote:

And of course the language of the bill in no way suggests "anybody could be simply be disappeared off the street as an "enemy combatant". By now even Annapurna1 is aware that all the detainees held in Gitmo (for example) have appeared in front of military tribunals to determine whether or not they could be accurately classed as enemy combatants, and those who didn't meet that classification (and even many who DID) have been released.




going back to the AP article in the thread post ..

Quote:

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

Legal experts (no..zappa..it doesnt say "anna") said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.




the article then names and quotes the said experts ..

Quote:

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court — and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.




(other quotes from more experts follow..which i wont repeat..so below is *not* one of them)...

taken to its most rediculous extreme.."loosely suspected of terror ties" could mean simply buying a gallon of gas for the lawnmower...more realistically..however..one could imagine a case where anyone caught with a spliff in their mouth is presumed guilty of funding the FARC..and held in military detention..until proven innocent at a military tribunal.. which you might not even be allowed to attend.. and which would necessarily be fallacious either way...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTrepiodos
Disgustipated
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/30/06
Posts: 469
Loc: Los Angeles County Jail
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5913686 - 07/30/06 12:53 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
And should you grow a pair of breasts you'd be a woman.



And if you should develop some common sense, you would recognize the unmistakable trends and patterns.

The Justice Department's draft "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" contained the following proposals. Section 201 would revoke portions of the Freedom of Information Act, the right to obtain information about a friend or family member detained by the government in connection with any activity deemed "terrorist" (who defines the terms?) would be revoked. Section 501 would give the Justice Department power to revoke a person's citizenship for participating in or "providing material support to" a "terrorist" organization (again, who defines the terms?). It is a FACT of past legislation and ongoing legislation, that when items such as these do not pass the first time, riders are put on unrelated bills (bills with nice sounding names - you know, something "for the children") which pass without being read. THIS IS THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. THESE ARE THE TACTICS EMPLOYED. Tell me, how many legislators read the original Patriot Act before voting to pass it?

Apparently you are under the impression that freedom continues to expand in the U.S., that government continues to contract in the U.S., that laws are being repealed in the U.S., that the debt continues to shrink, that prison populations are shrinking, that the balance of power is shifting back towards states rights and individual liberty.

The president can declare ANYONE to be an enemy combatant. The federal government has arrested and holds people WITHOUT charges. The federal government has spied on Americans WITHOUT warrants, without judicial oversight. The executive branch lawyers deny the foundations of the republic in the letter of the Constitution and make unfounded claims to unfettered executive power. The Constitution enumerates and delimits the specific powers of each branch of government. The Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights not to be infringed upon by the federal government. Yet our president signs laws and issues signing statements which says the law is whatever his whims decide. Our congress, controlled by the same political party, rolls over like well paid whores. If the government can, at will, declare anybody an enemy combatant, without due process, and also revoke citizenship on the word of one man or one party, without due process, what do you call this? Do you call this freedom? Do you call this liberty? Do you call this justice? Is this moving towards your ideal form of government?

We are experiencing creeping totalitarianism. It is a process that is ongoing, one step at a time. The facts are apparent to anyone who is not asleep, it is not what might come about, but what is coming about. If you can offer proof to the contrary, such as facts showing the shrinking of government spending, the diminishing of the number of laws, the restoration of loss liberties, the freeing of increasing numbers of people from prison and pardoning them for victimless crimes, the restoration of states rights, then you might have a leg to stand on. As it is, you appear to be nothing but an eloquent apologist for bigger and bigger government and the trampling of individual liberty.


--------------------

And as things fell apart,
Nobody paid much attention...

- David Byrne, '(Nothing But) Flowers' from the Talking Heads' album, 'Naked'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Trepiodos]
    #5913781 - 07/30/06 01:45 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)



--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #5913823 - 07/30/06 02:11 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Annapurna1 writes:

Quote:

first of all..their not "war criminals" until they have been convicted as such..




Well, duh! The whole point of this legislation is to establish the proper venue for those trials.

Quote:

...one of the big problems with this bill is that it would virtually make them "war criminals" right off the bat..




Not even close. To be so considered they must first be charged with at least one of the various offenses traditionally defined as war crimes listed near the end of the draft bill. Then they must be convicted. Those not even charged are regular run of the mill enemy combatants, either lawful and unlawful.

As for your precious "legal experts", you can find legal "experts" to take either side of any issue. More to the point, you can define as an "expert" anyone who agrees with your stance, if you are a reporter (or Alex213).

Quote:

taken to its most rediculous extreme.."loosely suspected of terror ties" could mean simply buying a gallon of gas for the lawnmower...




And you'd be the one to go to if we were looking for ridiculous extremes, I'll give you that much. The legislation makes no mention of "loosely suspected terror ties", it refers to enemy combatants.

Quote:

..however..one could imagine a case where anyone caught with a spliff in their mouth is presumed guilty of funding the FARC..and held in military detention..until proven innocent at a military tribunal..




Yeah -- one could imagine such total hogwash... if one were Annapurna1.

This hysterical overreaction is just one reason why no one can possibly take the "sky is falling" crowd seriously. The jackboot of Fascism is always about to descend in America, but somehow it always ends up descending on the neck of some poor schlub in some third world hellhole instead.

This proposed bill writes no new law regarding the detention of enemy combatants in wartime. You can weep and wail and piss and moan till you're blue in the face and that won't change a thing. Captured enemy combatants have always been held till the cessation of hostilities -- unless they are executed or exchanged in a prisoner swap program.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Trepiodos]
    #5913900 - 07/30/06 02:57 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Trepiodos writes:

Quote:

The Justice Department's draft "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" contained the following proposals. Section 201 would revoke portions of the Freedom of Information Act, the right to obtain information about a friend or family member detained by the government in connection with any activity deemed "terrorist" (who defines the terms?) would be revoked. Section 501 would give the Justice Department power to revoke a person's citizenship for participating in or "providing material support to" a "terrorist" organization (again, who defines the terms?). It is a FACT of past legislation and ongoing legislation, that when items such as these do not pass the first time, riders are put on unrelated bills (bills with nice sounding names - you know, something "for the children") which pass without being read.




If it is a FACT of legislation, you should have no difficulty providing us the legislation in which these proposals were enacted into law. Would you please do so? Because I follow politics VERY closely and I will admit I missed the report of these measures being passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Quote:

Apparently you are under the impression that freedom continues to expand in the U.S., that government continues to contract in the U.S., that laws are being repealed in the U.S., that the debt continues to shrink, that prison populations are shrinking, that the balance of power is shifting back towards states rights and individual liberty.




I think none of those things. I do, however, recognize that there is nothing an American citizen could legally do on September 10, 2001 that he cannot legally do today. At least as far as federal law is concerned -- I cannot speak for every single statute passed by state and municipal government. We are warned hysterically over and over again that the US is becoming a police state and that the federal government is revoking liberty left right and center, but no one ever provides a specific instance of this. It's all vague muttering that "this COULD happen" and "the warning signs are there IF X, Y, and Z get passed". When I point out correctly that none of this HAS happened, people call me a brainwashed naive trusting fool.

But at least my observations reflect actual reality. Their speculations have so far been wrong 100% of the time. What does that tell us about who might actually be a fool?

Quote:

The president can declare ANYONE to be an enemy combatant.




If true, that has been the prerogative of presidents since long before Bush took office. It was certainly true before this draft legislation was written. And that specific proposed legislation is what is being discussed in this thread.

Quote:

The federal government has arrested and holds people WITHOUT charges.




What people? US citizens? Proof please.

And again, I point out that even if they do actually do this, they do it not because of any legislation passed since Bush became president.

Quote:

The federal government has spied on Americans WITHOUT warrants, without judicial oversight.




And they did so long before Bush became president. And again, that has nothing to do with the legislation being discussed in THIS thread.

Quote:

The executive branch lawyers deny the foundations of the republic in the letter of the Constitution and make unfounded claims to unfettered executive power.




Incorrect. The executive branch lawyers make no such claims. Even if they were to do so one day down the road, no such claims are made in the legislation being discussed in THIS thread.

Quote:

Yet our president signs laws and issues signing statements which says the law is whatever his whims decide.




Incorrect. He does no such thing. But even if he were to do so one day down the road, no such presidential declarations have been made in the legislation being discussed in THIS thread.

Quote:

Our congress, controlled by the same political party, rolls over like well paid whores. If the government can, at will, declare anybody an enemy combatant, without due process, and also revoke citizenship on the word of one man or one party, without due process, what do you call this? Do you call this freedom? Do you call this liberty? Do you call this justice? Is this moving towards your ideal form of government?




If the ability of the government to decide in wartime who is an enemy combatant and who isn't were some recent development, I'd be worried, But it isn't a new development. It's been happening since long before I was born, and I ain't no spring chicken.

By the way, can you provide the relevant legislation outlining the circumstances under which the US federal government can revoke the citizenship of an American? Could you also let us know the date that legislation was passed?

... to be continued below....


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5913904 - 07/30/06 02:58 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

...continued from above post...

Trepiodos writes:

Quote:

We are experiencing creeping totalitarianism.




If so, you should have no difficulty providing, say, the last three pieces of legislation which revoked civil liberties of American citizens, and which specific liberties were revoked.

Quote:

If you can offer proof to the contrary...




Hang on there, sport. It's you making a claim -- that the US is becoming more totalitarian. It's not up to me to prove it isn't, it's up to you to prove it is. I've already told you how to do that. Show us the legislation which supports your assertion.

Quote:

...the shrinking of government spending...




So all Western governments are growing more totalitarian? Because none of them are shrinking their spending. Besides, since when does spending more money qualify as totalitarian? Foolhardy, sure. Totalitarian? I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Quote:

... the diminishing of the number of laws...




So all Western governments are growing more totalitarian? Because none of them are revoking more legislation in a year than they pass. Besides, since when does passing new legislation qualify as totalitarian? Unnecessary meddling, sure. Totalitarian? I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Quote:

... the restoration of loss liberties...




Which liberties would those be, when were they lost, under which pieces of legislation? Be specific, please.

Quote:

...the freeing of increasing numbers of people from prison and pardoning them for victimless crimes...




People are freed from prisons all the time -- once they've served their sentence (and often before that. Think "parole"). Please name for us a new "victimless crime" for which US citizens are being imprisoned since the turn of the century. Be specific, please.

Quote:

... the restoration of states rights...




Please list for us the state's rights which have been usurped by the federal government since the turn of the century. Please provide a reference to the relevant federal legislation providing the basis for the usurping.

Quote:

As it is, you appear to be nothing but an eloquent apologist for bigger and bigger government and the trampling of individual liberty.




To someone not capable of rational thought, perhaps. The fact of the matter is that I as a Laissez-faire Capitalist oppose all the above things you mention. However, I also have the intellectual honesty to realize that as far as things currently are from my ideals, they aren't getting worse -- except for government spending, but I'm realistic enough to recognize that fiscal irresponsibility is a far cry from totalitarianism, creeping or otherwise.

However, none of that laundry list of yours has anything to do with the legislation being discussed in this thread.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJ4S0N
human
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/29/04
Posts: 284
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Trepiodos]
    #5914744 - 07/30/06 11:43 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

These Federal Government cheerleaders won't admit their 'authorities' are wrong until its them who are being treated unfairly. As long as they keep making money they will support their government. It doesn't matter that people are being arrested for things that they use to be able to do. Just as long as the economy keeps going.

It won't be that way forever though, eventually this new age facism is going to catch up with everyone. Until then I guess we can all argue about it on internet forums.


--------------------
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5914749 - 07/30/06 11:46 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Well, duh! The whole point of this legislation is to establish the proper venue for those trials.




the whole point of hamdan was that the venue proposed in the draft is *not* a "proper venue"...


Quote:

Quote:

...one of the big problems with this bill is that it would virtually make them "war criminals" right off the bat..






Not even close. To be so considered they must first be charged with at least one of the various offenses traditionally defined as war crimes listed near the end of the draft bill. Then they must be convicted. Those not even charged are regular run of the mill enemy combatants, either lawful and unlawful.







technically..no..but rediculously close nonethelss..as noted in the AP article ..

Quote:

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.




its ludicrous to even begin to imagin a "defense" under those condtions..which is why they were ruled illegal...the repugnican argument about protecting classified information is also bogus..since the UCMJ already makes that provision...

Quote:

As for your precious "legal experts", you can find legal "experts" to take either side of any issue. More to the point, you can define as an "expert" anyone who agrees with your stance, if you are a reporter (or Alex213).




that was meant more as disclaimer against zappa..but one such expert that would take the opposite stance is john yoo...but other experts that have disagreed with yoo include john paul stevens..ruther bader-ginsburg..steven breyer..david souter..and anthony kennedy..who is no liberal moonbat...

Quote:

The legislation makes no mention of "loosely suspected terror ties", it refers to enemy combatants.




maybe.. maybe not...but thats how one military lawyer quoted above..who knows much more about the law than phred..is interpreting it...

Quote:

Quote:

however..one could imagine a case where anyone caught with a spliff in their mouth is presumed guilty of funding the FARC..and held in military detention..until proven innocent at a military tribunal..






Yeah -- one could imagine such total hogwash... if one were Annapurna1.




of if one were the producer of those infamous super-bowl ads...and it would be extremely foolish to believe that the neocons dont really think along the same lines as those ads...

Quote:

This hysterical overreaction is just one reason why no one can possibly take the "sky is falling" crowd seriously. The jackboot of Fascism is always about to descend in America, but somehow it always ends up descending on the neck of some poor schlub in some third world hellhole instead.




i dont know if the sky is falling yet..but it looks alot lower than it did before the head-up-their-asses "everyone is happy" crowd started swallowing every turd that comes out of john yoos' mouth...

Quote:

This proposed bill writes no new law regarding the detention of enemy combatants in wartime. You can weep and wail and piss and moan till you're blue in the face and that won't change a thing. Captured enemy combatants have always been held till the cessation of hostilities -- unless they are executed or exchanged in a prisoner swap program.




thats because there has always been a cessation of hostilities...but not this time...bush has declared a permanent state of war in order to permanently afford the executive
plenary power under article II of the US constitution ..

Quote:






the SCOTUS flatly reject this line of reasoning in hamdan..which the congressional repugnicans are seeking to overturn...and speaking as a liberal moonbat..i dont find it unreasonable that a "new kind of war" should require new..and not-so-new..restrictions on wartime executive power if we are to remain a nation of laws...

Edited by Annapurna1 (07/30/06 04:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5914871 - 07/30/06 12:42 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Captured enemy combatants have always been held till the cessation of hostilities -- unless they are executed or exchanged in a prisoner swap program.




If this War on Terror is anything like the War on Drugs, those enemy combatants better make themselves at home in their cells, because this is one war that isn't ending anytime soon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5914938 - 07/30/06 01:06 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The Viet Nam war lasted thirty years. This one so far has lasted less than five.

You will note that even though the US has the right to keep combatants for the duration, they don't always bother. Hundreds have been released from Guantanamo, for example. Unfortunately, many of them shouldn't have been. Over a dozen are known to have immediately returned to the battlefield. How many dozens more have returned to waging war without our knowledge?

Despite the fuming over the detention of enemy combatants, I have yet to come across a serious suggestion from opponents of Guantanamo (for example) as to what should be done with captured enemy combatants. The alternatives are pretty limited --

1) Kill them
2) Detain them till hostilities are agreed by both sides to be ended
3) Detain them for an arbitrary length of time, then release them

I confess I am too unimaginative to come up with anything else, but I'll gladly examine any alternatives I have missed, should anyone more imaginative than myself care to add to that short list. Until then, I cannot see how any serious person would choose anything other than alternative 2). I admit I'm curious to see which alternative you would choose.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 5,143 56 08/18/05 11:33 PM
by trick
* History Channel debunks 9/11 "Truthers"
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Phred 6,654 83 10/29/07 11:17 AM
by afoaf
* Debunking 911 myths
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Great_Satan 9,759 134 03/20/05 02:19 AM
by Rose
* Debunking the "Official" 9/11 story
( 1 2 all )
barfightlard 2,445 28 12/12/05 05:38 PM
by afoaf
* Debunkers' Best Rebuttal: "Willie Smokes Pot" Visionary Tools 1,468 14 02/06/08 06:53 PM
by Teragon
* Debunking another Gitmo myth. lonestar2004 741 4 06/23/05 08:43 AM
by Phred
* .
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
AnonymousRabbit 4,674 100 10/08/08 04:53 PM
by johnm214
* A gift for Phred: Palinphobes and the audacity of type
( 1 2 all )
Green_T 2,023 26 03/21/09 01:06 AM
by Phred

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,735 topic views. 0 members, 7 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.