Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ 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
OfflineMicrocosmatrix
Spiral staircasetechnician
Male

Registered: 10/20/05
Posts: 11,293
Loc: Ythan's house
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5915120 - 07/30/06 02:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
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.




Yeah it's another war which cannot possibly be won. Just as it's impossible to prevent someone from brewing some wine, or planting a few pot plants, it's also impossible to pervent some jackass from strapping on some dynamite and bombing a nightclub.

The "war on terror" will never end, at least not until the "war on drugs" ends with it. That's because the government likes being in a never-ending false war or two, it's good for the military, the police, and it lets you pass all kinds of crazy laws in a quicker span of time.


--------------------
:orly:


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]
    #5915157 - 07/30/06 02:39 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

After being interrogated, I would put them up for a military trial. If they are found guilty, they should be jailed or executed. If there is no proof of guilt or collaboration with the enemy during the trial, they should be released immediately.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5915362 - 07/30/06 03:48 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Why does my name keep getting dragged into this?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5917495 - 07/31/06 01:36 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Yeah that'd be nice but I think that was far too much common sense for the govt to share that train of thought.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKonnrade
↑↑↓↓<--><-->BA
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 13,833
Loc: LA Suburbs
Last seen: 10 months, 14 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5917712 - 07/31/06 04:21 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
Yeah that'd be nice but I think that was far too much common sense for the govt to share that train of thought.




While there's a specter of truth to that statement, the simple method he mentioned would most likely save time and money. Politicians love public examples of saving government money. It makes them look better to voters.


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

I find your lack of faith disturbing

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]
    #5918058 - 07/31/06 09:34 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

After being interrogated, I would put them up for a military trial. If they are found guilty, they should be jailed or executed. If there is no proof of guilt or collaboration with the enemy during the trial, they should be released immediately.




In other words (except for the execution part), you would follow the same procedure currently in place -- i.e. option 2).




Phred


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

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]
    #5918165 - 07/31/06 10:33 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I would prefer the process to be a bit more expedited.

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]
    #5918230 - 07/31/06 11:14 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

But you have no problem with the current process -- you just want the captured folks to be brought in front of a military tribunal in order to determine if they are really enemy combatants more rapidly than you believe is currently the case.

Do I have that right?




Phred


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

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]
    #5918238 - 07/31/06 11:16 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Sounds about right. I just don't like paying for someone to be detained who a) may be innocent b) may be a enemy combatant and should be executed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Redstorm]
    #5918252 - 07/31/06 11:21 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

getting debunked only really hurts if you're on the top bunk.

:rofl2:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5918565 - 07/31/06 01:24 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Yeah, I'm sure they aren't holding anyone without evidence and without trial.  :rolleyes:


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

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: RosettaStoned]
    #5918673 - 07/31/06 02:13 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Which of the three options would you choose, Rosetta?



Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5920938 - 08/01/06 03:00 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

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 would say it depends on the individual. And it's really hard for me to say because I am suspect of the entire circumstances surrounding the war in the first place. If the govt did in fact orchestrate this whole thing then anything done to "enemy combatants" is just piling one grave injustice on top of another.

But if I were to think up a hypothetical situation where I knew a country was indeed attacked by terrorists by no fault of their own deeds or actions directly or indirectly and had to figure out what to do with enemy POWs, I would say there needs to be a time limit on the military tribunal to come up with evidence to support charges. I would also demand civilian oversight of these tribunals so there is some preventative measures to keep it from becoming a farce.

So I guess all of the above. Anyone proven to have purposefully targeted civilians should be executed. Anyone who has aided them or engaged in conventional warfare should be sentenced for a period of years (depending on nature of the act) where they can get a new trial when the conflict can be re-assessed. And people being held with no evidence against them should most certainly be released. Once again, civilian oversight is key. Those conducting the trials should have their jobs on the line for failure.

But most importantly, US citizens should not be subject to being classified as an "enemy combatant". This open pandoras box. We have courts for US citizens, fuck them pieces of shit if they think there is a reason to circumvent that.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Edited by RosettaStoned (08/01/06 03:02 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: RosettaStoned]
    #5921251 - 08/01/06 08:29 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Anyone who has aided them or engaged in conventional warfare should be sentenced for a period of years (depending on nature of the act) where they can get a new trial when the conflict can be re-assessed.




So you reject completely the prisoner of war concept. To you, someone captured in Iraq while launching anti-tank missiles at a coalition vehicle is not a prisoner of war, but a criminal. If he fires a rifle at the vehicle he gets maybe three years detention, if he fires an RPG he gets four years, if he fires a TOW missile he gets five years? Minus time served and with one third off for good behavior?

This illustrates (once again) how unserious the left-leaning crowd are when it comes to war, and why they should not be allowed to have anything to do with decisions made in time of war.

Quote:

But most importantly, US citizens should not be subject to being classified as an "enemy combatant".




Of course they should. It makes no difference to the occupants of the vehicle being targeted with a TOW missile if the one firing it is a Syrian citizen or a US citizen who decided to travel to Iraq and join the jihad. An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant, no matter what passport he carries. Captured enemy combatants have always been detained till the end of hostilities so they don't return to the fight once released. Why should American citizens get a pass?




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5921282 - 08/01/06 09:06 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> To you, someone captured in Iraq while launching anti-tank missiles at a coalition vehicle is not a prisoner of war, but a criminal.

The problem is that they are neither a criminal or soldier. The Hague and Geneva Conventions lay out four criteria defining prisoners of war. This is a direct quote:

a. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
b. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
c. that of carrying arms openly.
d. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The guerrillas firing the anti-tank missiles in Iraq do not fit the above four definitions, thus they are not protected under international law as prisoners of war. There are actually a few more provisions, so to be complete lets take a quick peek at those:

1. that guerrillas and resistance movements are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they fit the four criteria above.
2. That if a populace spontaneously rises up in defense of its territory without having time to organize formally, they are still entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they meet criteria c. and d.
3. That persons whose status is in doubt enjoy the protection of prisoner of war status until their status is determined by a "competent tribunal." They are not prisoners of war, but are to be given the same treatment until their status is determined.

Again, none of these extra provisions would allow the guerrillas in Iraq to claim prisoner of war status or get prisoner of war protections under international law.

> Captured enemy combatants have always been detained till the end of hostilities so they don't return to the fight once released.

This is inaccurate as well. Enemy combatants are not prisoners of war. Prisoners of war have rights protected by international law while enemy combatants do not.

> Why should American citizens get a pass?

Because there are criminal laws that can be used to prosecute American citizens that are fighting against America. These laws do not apply to non-US citizens. However, I can argue this point both ways...


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

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: Seuss]
    #5921305 - 08/01/06 09:25 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Your points illustrate the difficulty of talking about this without using incredibly lengthy sentences filled with qualifying clauses and subclauses.

I realize full well that the jihadis being captured are not "prisoners of war" in the sense that say captured uniformed Japanese soldiers in 1944 were prisoners of war -- or even captured Iraqi Army regulars in 2003, for that matter.

That is why the broader term "enemy combatants" -- with its subcategories (lawful and unlawful) is typically used. A Nazi spy in 1943 was an unlawful enemy combatant and not due the protections given to say a Nazi Wehrmacht sergeant.

Nonetheless, even though the captured jihadis are not due the protections described by the Geneva Conventions, the Bush Administration has extended them to to the jihadis anyway. As such, they are being handled as Prisoners of War, and the same concepts governing the detention of POWs are being applied to them.

It is insane to treat someone firing a TOW missile at a tank in a war zone as a common criminal. If he were wearing a uniform or identifying insignia, he would be a soldier. The fact of the matter is that he is an enemy combatant, and enemy combatants have always been at the very least detained till the cessation of hostilities. Sometimes of course spies and saboteurs and other clandestine combatants (i.e. unlawful combatants) were detained just long enough to be hanged or shot, but so far in this conflict the coalition side has refrained from doing this. Clearly some of the respondents to this thread think that is showing too much restraint, but gallows and firing squads can be assembled at short notice. If the enemy combatant is detained, he can always be trotted out to the gallows at some later point. This is not the case if they are given a "sentence" of X years and then released back to the battlefield.

As for your position that there are criminal laws which can be used against American citizens -- apart from charging him with treason, which criminal charge did you have in mind for an American citizen who assembles, buries, and detonates an IED in a Baghdad suburb which destroys a US Army vehicle filled with US troops? Murder? Attempted murder? Assault?




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5921330 - 08/01/06 09:38 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> apart from charging him with treason

Treason works for me, as defined in the US constitution. Oddly enough, this is also the only time I approve of the death penalty as punishment.

Quote:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.




and

Quote:

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."




Seems pretty cut and dry. (To be clear, this is for US citizens fighting against the US. I would not offer this "protection" to non-US citizens captured fighting against the US.)

> Your points illustrate the difficulty of talking about this without using incredibly lengthy sentences filled with qualifying clauses and subclauses.

Very true. Now that I re-read what you originally said, along with the above, I think we are pretty much saying the same thing.

> Nonetheless, even though the captured jihadis are not due the protections described by the Geneva Conventions, the Bush Administration has extended them to to the jihadis anyway

To me, this was a mistake. They are enemy combatants and do not deserve the protections of the Geneva Conventions. I'm not saying that they should not get due process, only that they should not be given POW protections.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5921368 - 08/01/06 10:04 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

It is insane to treat someone firing a TOW missile at a tank in a war zone as a common criminal

If anyone in Gitmo had been caught doing anything remotely like this there wouldn't be any problem charging them. The trouble is that they are all there on little more than scuttlebutt. And no matter how good you think your scuttlebutt is it shouldn't be enough to lock someone up for years.

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]
    #5921411 - 08/01/06 10:30 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Any United States citizen classified as a enemy combatant should be tried in the citizen courts for treason.

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]
    #5921422 - 08/01/06 10:40 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Nonetheless, even though the captured jihadis are not due the protections described by the Geneva Conventions, the Bush Administration has extended them to to the jihadis anyway. As such, they are being handled as Prisoners of War, and the same concepts governing the detention of POWs are being applied to them.




wrong...the whole point of the hamdan ruling was that the captured jihadis are due the protections described by the geneva conventions...and the bush administration deservs no credit for denying them those protections until the SCOTUS said otherwise..and now calling on his lackeys in congress to reverse the courts' decision...


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


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

Edited by Annapurna1 (08/01/06 03:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5921975 - 08/01/06 01:56 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

So you reject completely the prisoner of war concept. To you, someone captured in Iraq while launching anti-tank missiles at a coalition vehicle is not a prisoner of war, but a criminal. If he fires a rifle at the vehicle he gets maybe three years detention, if he fires an RPG he gets four years, if he fires a TOW missile he gets five years? Minus time served and with one third off for good behavior?





Did you even read all of my post? I clearly said at the end of the sentence they should get a new trial when the conflicted can be re-assessed. Or did you conveniently skip that part in favor of trying to draw an illogical assumption to make me look bad? If at the time their original sentence was up and it is still a threat to let them go, then they can be giving a longer sentence accordingly. But holding someone indefinitely and without civilian oversight is wrong and should not be tolerated by any society that values democratic principles.

Quote:

This illustrates (once again) how unserious the left-leaning crowd are when it comes to war, and why they should not be allowed to have anything to do with decisions made in time of war




What this illustrates, is (once again) how the right-wing fascists try to avoid the actual discussion in favor of attacking a persons character to try and discredit them. Gods I seem to be saying that alot, but dutifully I will continue to point it out whenever that tactic is so pathetically used as the crutch it is.

Quote:

Of course they should. It makes no difference to the occupants of the vehicle being targeted with a TOW missile if the one firing it is a Syrian citizen or a US citizen who decided to travel to Iraq and join the jihad. An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant, no matter what passport he carries. Captured enemy combatants have always been detained till the end of hostilities so they don't return to the fight once released. Why should American citizens get a pass?




So according to you, we can just do away with treason then right? We can just send anyone suspected of treason to gitmo where they can be held as long as some military man decides without trial and without evidence. Oh they're will be a military tribunal you say? And who oversees it to make sure they are fair and real evidence is used to protect the whole process from being abused? Oh yeah, another military man.

In fact, why don't we just do away with our court system all together? We can just call anyone who commits a crime an "enemy combatant" and lock them up in POW camps until all war on planet earth has ended. That would sure make it easier for our brave men an women fighting for our freedom right?  :rolleyes:


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: debunking phred... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5922061 - 08/01/06 02:37 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

If they get away with locking "suspected" terrorists up you can bet your ass they'll be coming for "suspected" drug users next.

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: Alex213]
    #5922284 - 08/01/06 03:46 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

whats more likely to happen is that the drug suspects will be presumed to be funding terrorism as per those assinine super bowl ads...


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


"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: RosettaStoned]
    #5922443 - 08/01/06 04:52 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Did you even read all of my post? I clearly said at the end of the sentence they should get a new trial when the conflicted can be re-assessed.




Yes, I read all of your post. You clearly fail to grasp the essential difference between a criminal act and an act of war. Captured enemy combatants aren't "sentenced", they are detained till the end of hostilities. It might be for a short period of time -- as it was for Iraqi army regulars -- or it might be for a long period -- as was the case with POWs in the Viet Nam war.

Quote:

But holding someone indefinitely and without civilian oversight is wrong and should not be tolerated by any society that values democratic principles.




All POWs have always been held "indefinitely" in the sense that no one can predict with any fair degree of accuracy the date on which hostilities cease.

Quote:

What this illustrates, is (once again) how the right-wing fascists try to avoid the actual discussion in favor of attacking a persons character to try and discredit them.




I'm certainly not avoiding any discussion here, Rosie. I never avoid discussions. But as part of the discussion I also point out the essential unseriousness of the anti-war crowd's position. Their stance is that this is not a war. That it is nothing more than a bunch of criminals committing random acts of murder, therefore it is inappropriate to treat these criminals as enemy combatants. That is a fundamentally unserious position to hold. It ignores reality. Like it or not, this is a war, and to pretend otherwise is folly.

Quote:

So according to you, we can just do away with treason then right?




Not at all. If it turns out that some of the captured enemy combatants are American citizens, then of course they can be charged with treason. I take it your position is that not only can they be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? No discretion on the part of the US government here? You are aware, of course, that treason is a crime which carries the death penalty.

What is your feeling towards those who violated their oaths and the Official Secrets Act by spilling the beans to the press on the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking program involving the SWIFT center? Must the government charge them with treason as well? No option, no discretion -- automatic indictment for treason?

It is madness -- no other word for it -- to give every captured enemy combatant a full on civilian court trial. It has never been done in the history of warfare, and for good reasons.

As for your bleating about "do(ing) away with our court system all together," and "call(ing) anyone who commits a crime an 'enemy combatant' ", that is not what is being proposed by the draft legislation Annapurna1 linked to. It proposes changes to the military justice system designed to accomodate the ruling of SCOTUS in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5928021 - 08/03/06 08:27 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> All POWs have always been held "indefinitely" in the sense that no one can predict with any fair degree of accuracy the date on which hostilities cease.

This is exactly why I do not like giving POW protections to terrorists/enemy combatants. The enemy combatants are not fighting for a country. If the "war on terrorism" were to end, what country would sign the surrender agreement for the terrorists? Guess what, there isn't any country that actually represents the terrorists. The GC simply does not fit the terrorist model of fighting, and thus the terrorists caught fighting against troops that are obligated to follow the GC should not be given any POW protections. They are not US citizens, and were not captured by US police on US soil, therefore, they should not get the protections of the US legal system.

This leaves us very few choice:

1) kill them
2) detain them indefinitely
3) return them to their country of origin

Personally, I like option 3 with the extra clause that should they be taken a second time on the battlefield, option 1 will be invoked.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequiver
freedrug
Male

Registered: 10/25/05
Posts: 8,047
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Seuss]
    #5928136 - 08/03/06 09:55 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

i prefer option 1 myself

another thing i've always thought i'd do when taking surrenedered/captured pows is to check for ammo

no ammo,no weapons then surrender=death

ammo and armed but surrenders=option3

ofcourse thats for criminal insurgents only,otherwise id follow the gc unless ofcourse we were getting reports of our own getting murdered or tortured on the field,then i'd use fire with fire and spit on the gc


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

Edited by quiver (08/03/06 10:03 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5928622 - 08/03/06 01:39 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

You clearly fail to grasp the essential difference between a criminal act and an act of war. Captured enemy combatants aren't "sentenced", they are detained till the end of hostilities.




That's exactly what I said, I just used different wording. They should be sentenced for a period of time depending on the nature of the act. Then when that period of time is up they get a new trial, where if a new sentence is needed because of ongoing hostilities, it can be imposed. This is why I always ask if you even read my posts. I say something that in essence mean the same thing as indefinitely, but yet somehow to you it means the opposite.

Quote:

All POWs have always been held "indefinitely"




They aren't POWs and the GC doesn't apply to them, hence why there needs to be some new rules that aren't just "hold them until we feel like it". Because the WOT could go on forever, do all these people deserve life sentences? And what has already been pointed out, no country is going to sign for them when hostilities end (not like they ever will: see war on drugs).

Quote:

I take it your position is that not only can they be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason?




What else do you call it when you take up arms against the country you are a citizen of? I know there are other forms of treason but hasn't that always been treason? Do I need to dig up a dictionary definition? Oh yeah that's right, repubs make up word meanings as they go dictionaries don't mean shit to them.

Quote:

What is your feeling towards those who violated their oaths and the Official Secrets Act by spilling the beans to the press on the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking program involving the SWIFT center?




Well for one a reporter should not have to reveal their source. When you start making them reveal their sources or go to jail you undermine one of the fundamental aspects that makes democracy work: free media. Which I personally think they have the media on a very short lease, with the exception of the net. Given time they'll have their boot on our necks here too. That's what you want after all right? Wouldn't you enjoy a debate with a room full of right-wingers so you all can talk about how great bush is?


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: debunking phred... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5928700 - 08/03/06 02:15 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

When the act of divulging the information to the reporter is a crime itself then the reporter must be compelled to reveal the criminal


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

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: RosettaStoned]
    #5928742 - 08/03/06 02:28 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

They should be sentenced for a period of time depending on the nature of the act.




The nature of the act is fighting in a war. That's why captured enemy combatants are detained for the length of the war -- because if released, they will return to the fight. And that's why it's not a "sentence". They haven't been convicted of a crime, they have been captured fighting a war.

Do you believe the North Vietnamese should have released American POWs captured in, say, 1965, some time in 1970 or 1971, for example?

There's no point "reviewing" a POW's "sentence" if the war is still continuing. If the war is still on, he doesn't get released. Similarly, there is no point "reviewing" a POW's "sentence" if the war is over. If the war is over, he is released.

Quote:

They aren't POWs and the GC doesn't apply to them, hence why there needs to be some new rules that aren't just "hold them until we feel like it".




It is true the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them, but they are nonetheless POW's to all intents and purposes. They are enemy combatants captured during wartime. The fact that they don't wear uniforms doesn't alter the fact that they are enemy combatants.

Quote:

Because the WOT could go on forever, do all these people deserve life sentences?




If it does go on forever, then yes, they do.

Quote:

What else do you call it when you take up arms against the country you are a citizen of? I know there are other forms of treason but hasn't that always been treason? Do I need to dig up a dictionary definition? Oh yeah that's right, repubs make up word meanings as they go dictionaries don't mean shit to them.




So is it your position that not only can they be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? The US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?

Quote:

Well for one a reporter should not have to reveal their source.




Perhaps. What if the government investigations find through other means the identities of the leakers? Or what if some reporters willingly give up their sources? Is your position that the leakers must be charged with treason?




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5930331 - 08/04/06 01:30 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

So is it your position that not only can they be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? The US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?





I guess your going to force me to post a dictionary definition? Ok, here you go.

Treason: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance

There you go, it's not that this is "my position" it's that this is the meaning of the word. If you take up arms against your country that you are a citizen of, then you are committing treason...

To me, that means you use violence against your own military or govt leaders with the intent to shift or alter the balance of power in some way. Or perhaps somehow commit an action which directly aids the enemy to commit an act of violence to shift or alter the balance of power.

Leaking a govt program to our "free media" is hardly treason especially when the very circumstances of the war itself are questionable. I believe in open govt so they shouldn't be keeping secrets from the people who elect them in the first place. But while we're getting into treason, the top people at the DEA should be held and tried for treason for misleading and imprisoning the people of this country. You want to hold anyone for treason it should be them. The reporters are doing their jobs (well, some of them) by keeping the public informed. Though the extent of which they keep us informed is very sad at times.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5930486 - 08/04/06 04:25 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> I guess your going to force me to post a dictionary definition?

Actually, going to the source would be much better. I already posted this once in this thread, but I guess nobody noticed:

From the US Constitution:
Quote:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.




and

Quote:

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."




> Leaking a govt program to our "free media" is hardly treason

I can see cases where I would disagree with you. There are times that I can see leaking information about a govt program being done to aid enemies that are at war with the US.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

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: RosettaStoned]
    #5930975 - 08/04/06 10:12 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Are yo ever going to get around to answering my question? This is the third time I've asked it --

So is it your position that not only can US citizens fighting against US armed forces be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? That the US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?

On my subsidiary point regarding treason, there is absolutely no doubt that the leakers of the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking (SWIFT) programs committed treason. There is also absolutely no doubt that the leakers of the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking (SWIFT)programs also broke their oaths and violated the Official Secrets Act. But if you want to ignore this particular tangent to the main topic of the thread, that's fine by me. The leakers committed treason, but I cannot accurately lable them enemy combatants, and this whole thread is about enemy combatants. But if you do choose to continue this side tangent, please next time answer the question being asked. I'm not asking if the reporters or the newspapers they work for must be charged with treason, I'm asking if the leakers must be.

For someone who whines about my not reading your posts, you do a piss poor job of reading mine.




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5931192 - 08/04/06 11:30 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> there is absolutely no doubt that the leakers of the NSA surveillance program and the financial tracking (SWIFT) programs committed treason.

I would disagree, I think.  Based upon the definition of treason in the constitution, and United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381, I think it would depend upon the intent of those that leaked the information.  If they released the information because they don't like Bush, or they felt the program was illegal, then I don't think it would qualify as treason.  (It would still be an illegal act under other US laws, but not treason.)  However, if they released the information with the intent of helping terrorists, then yes, absolutely, it is treason.

I'm not a lawyer, and I could easily be incorrect here.  Either way, the people that broke their oath and and the law should spend a nice long time in a pound 'em up the ass prison, if not worse.  :mad2:

Pulling us back on to the main topic, I am curious as well:

Quote:

Are yo ever going to get around to answering my question? This is the third time I've asked it --

So is it your position that not only can US citizens fighting against US armed forces be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? That the US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?




--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: debunking phred... [Re: Phred]
    #5935851 - 08/06/06 12:13 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

So is it your position that not only can US citizens fighting against US armed forces be charged with treason, they must be charged with treason? That the US government has no discretion at all in such cases -- an automatic indictment for treason must be issued? To make myself perfectly clear, John Walker Lind in your opinion must be charged with treason?




I thought I answered it, I guess I'll try to be clearer. I am not a legal expert, but I do know there is always an "exception to the rule" so I won't say anyone must be charged with anything. But I thought I outlined my opinion on what treason consisted of. And John walker guy probably qualified for it. But other than him I haven't seen one example even come close.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletak
geo's henchman
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/20/00
Posts: 3,776
Loc: nowhereland
Re: debunking phred... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5954616 - 08/11/06 06:15 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Can people be detained for showing public support of hizballah, or other anti-israel propaganda. I am kinda scared to express my views in fear I will be arrested..as silly as it sounds..and I am not really a paranoid person.


--------------------
The DJ's took pills to stay awake and play for seven days.

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: tak]
    #5954619 - 08/11/06 06:17 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

neither is it paranoia when they really are out to get you...the luxury of being paranoid no longer exists...

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

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


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, 10 guests and 11 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 0.044 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 14 queries.