BF2S Forums Tyranny, torture legalized - Detainee bill passes - Bush FTW

TeamZephyr wrote:

Congratulations USA, You've just become a Police State.

And your brilliant comment means something in reality? No. Oh ok, just checking.

EDIT: All sarcasim aside, seriously; I do have a question for you Zephyr, do most Austrailians miss their firearms?

Last edited by (T)eflon(S)hadow (2006-09-29 18:38:30)

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Shipbuilder, you haven't responded to my last three posts, discrediting your original post.

My, we really need the attention today don't we? Carrying on the conversation from another thread...

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

It is pretty clear to me if you take into context what the Military Commission Act of 2006 is about its purpose in being a new law, it is clearly defined.

Sec.8 of HR 6054 had to be put in the Bill, or provision as you describe it. This whole Act give the US Constitutional rights and power, that we never had before this being passed into law. Why do we need this new law, you might ask.  Well back in September of 2001, the 11th to be exact, this country was attacked like never before, by an enemy we had been blind to for, too long. If some genius would of had the forethought to write this law before then or directly after, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. You see, we didn't have any law describing the power and the due process this clearly allows for. We signed the Geneva Conventions Act, when? 50 years ago, this Bill was created , because the Geneve Conventions didnt have the experience of a nation being attacked, by a force that is described in that Act. It didn't exist, and it wasn't needed.

Can you show me specifically where the language of any of the Geneva Conventions falls short? I can't find any. I know I know - war has changed, it's no longer state vs state, etc - but please show me exactly where the Geneva Conventions are too vague and/or not applicable to the 9/11 attacks. I assume your problem is with the third one so please - show me the quote for exactly what you're talking about.

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Now the RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY, clearly give the US Government and its agencies to carry out plans in accordance under the US Constitution. It also clearly describes the due process in a Military Court Tribunal. (All kinds of boring reading if you want to indulge further.) Therefore, this Bill, and even the "provision" you state, has nothing to do with Pardoning the President of the United States, any White House Official, or any Member of the Armed Forces.

Yes it does.

It's simple.

1) The Geneva Conventions were ratified long ago by Congress.
2) Therefore, the Geneva Conventions are Congressional law.
3) After 9/11, the president and his administration condoned and conducted activities in violation of these Congressional laws.
4) The current bill RETROACTIVELY excuses the abuse of these violations.
5) Presto - presidential pardon.

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Cheers *pours another one*

I'd be drinking too, if I had to defend this bullshit.

Shipbuilder, you're just a dumbass at this point. I clearly explained my position and being the good lib you are you avoid my point, and change the subject. Deflecting any responsibility you have for making this post, and not being able to articulate anything to discredit my findings. Your phucked up, you can't call the President a War Criminal, he hasn't done anything illegal, and there is no "pardoning" in this bill!!!!! So Again, you have not proven anything based on your logic, or John Cafferty's, either.

Don't simply dodge the issues at hand by bringing up a different topic, we could discuss in a different forum.

Since you like the topic of law so much, do you believe that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Being judged by their peers?_{Not CNN!}

And as for my drinking, it was an expression! It's water, you dumbphuk! I'm AT WORK!

Classy comments there.

First of all, I did not avoid your point. I have taken and will take every misguided point you want to make head on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point is that 9/11 changed everything, that the way we were attacked on 9/11 was different from any other attack in the history of the world, therefore the Geneva Conventions were rendered outdated. And, the president needed to go back and rewrite the law to retroactively grant his administration the powers necessary to fight this attack. Please clarify if this is wrong, using punchy, specific statements and not rambling attempts at withering verbiage.

I countered by asking you to prove it. Prove to us that the Geneva Conventions as signed and ratified into law by Congress aren't enough. Show us where they fall short, and give us a clear example of where in the text it's obvious that Bush needed to grant his administration new powers.

You then accuse me of avoiding your point and changing the subject, calling me names for some reason.

Looking forward to your response.

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

Congratulations USA, You've just become a Police State.

And your brilliant comment means something in reality? No. Oh ok, just checking.

EDIT: All sarcasim aside, seriously; I do have a question for you Zephyr, do most Austrailians miss their firearms?

It means a lot in reality. Because of this bill the US is now a police state because you've given your security forces the power to imprison people without fair trial for a period that is not defined. You've also given your security forces the right to torture others. So I think it does mean a lot in reality.

And most of us don't give a shit whether we have guns or not. Despite the fact that it's still legal to own some firearms the whole buyback scheme was so that we didn't have dickheads running around with guns like you do in the US. Now if you want a firearm you have to go through a lengthy process to obtain firearms including not only a background check but a huge amount of license tests. We also ask the person "Why do you want a firearm?". Which is the most important question to ask any person wanted to buy guns.

Because of these precautions we've seen a massive drop in gun related deaths in Australia since 1998. Coincedence? I Think Not.

Perhaps you Americans should take a leaf out of Australia's book?

TeamZephyr wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

Congratulations USA, You've just become a Police State.

And your brilliant comment means something in reality? No. Oh ok, just checking.

EDIT: All sarcasim aside, seriously; I do have a question for you Zephyr, do most Austrailians miss their firearms?

It means a lot in reality. Because of this bill the US is now a police state because you've given your security forces the power to imprison people without fair trial for a period that is not defined. You've also given your security forces the right to torture others. So I think it does mean a lot in reality.

Enemy combatants

Which are not afforded many rights at all because they fight for no country under no flag and follow no rules of war.

Last edited by Colfax (2006-09-29 19:30:47)

Colfax wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

And your brilliant comment means something in reality? No. Oh ok, just checking.

EDIT: All sarcasim aside, seriously; I do have a question for you Zephyr, do most Austrailians miss their firearms?

It means a lot in reality. Because of this bill the US is now a police state because you've given your security forces the power to imprison people without fair trial for a period that is not defined. You've also given your security forces the right to torture others. So I think it does mean a lot in reality.

Enemy combatants

Which are not afforded many rights at all because they fight for no country under no flag and follow no rules of war.

Um, I'm pretty sure they are people. Which means that you should treat them like your brothers no matter what they think of you. Stop treating them like rabid dogs and start treating them like people.

It's amazing how little you Americans think about this sort of thing. If you started treating your prisoners properly you'd be setting a good example to the East and the rest of the world and more people would be supporting your Iraq and Afghanistan exploits. Because of this imprisonment without trial and torture business you've lost a lot of support.

TeamZephyr wrote:

Colfax wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

It means a lot in reality. Because of this bill the US is now a police state because you've given your security forces the power to imprison people without fair trial for a period that is not defined. You've also given your security forces the right to torture others. So I think it does mean a lot in reality.

Enemy combatants

Which are not afforded many rights at all because they fight for no country under no flag and follow no rules of war.

Um, I'm pretty sure they are people. Which means that you should treat them like your brothers no matter what they think of you. Stop treating them like rabid dogs and start treating them like people.

It's amazing how little you Americans think about this sort of thing. If you started treating your prisoners properly you'd be setting a good example to the East and the rest of the world and more people would be supporting your Iraq and Afghanistan exploits. Because of this imprisonment without trial and torture business you've lost a lot of support.

Part of being and ENEMY combatant means they are NOT your brother.... just thought I'd clear that up since that obviously didn't phase you. By the way, this bill gives the power to imprison without trial by jury, but unless they have significant evidence, the President can be impeached (abuse of power) and probably would be, and he knows that.

Only read page 1.

My thoughts:  LOL, and I thought we had the right to fair trial.  Phff, what the hell was I thinking.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c … 093HdoaE::

If that ^^^ is the bill you are talking about (which it seems to be, Bill 6166) I'd like to quote it:

That Website wrote:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6166) to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

That says that you can be put on a military trial, not imprisioned for no reason without a trial. By the way if that is the wrong thing let me know.

Sweet.  I am not a terrorist and I do not hate America, so I don't care.

spray_and_pray wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Sweet.  I am not a terrorist and I do not hate America, so I don't care.

you have just shown your ignorance, thankyou

mkay

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Sweet.  I am not a terrorist and I do not hate America, so I don't care.

you have just shown your ignorance, thankyou

Arresting ppl and detaining them costs money... why detain random ppl?

Because they are out to get us, even if we do not do anything wrong.  I am going to go hide in the crawl spaces.

its not quite so random as the popular media has led you to believe, you don't go to gitmo without good reason, however, technically the constitution and the bill of rights only apply to american citizens, and certain acts of war/treason will circumvent the protections of both for those that are american citizens