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

kr@cker wrote:

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

Jose Padilla? "You're a terrorist, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200" I mean after 3 years they finally decided to charge him with something.

Shipbuilder, can you tell me if the Bill I referred to in post# 191 is the correct one?

Colfax wrote:

Sgt_Sieg wrote:

Shipbuilder, can you tell me if the Bill I referred to in post# 191 is the correct one?

same site

search Military Commissions Act of 2006

it is bill H.R. 6166

and yes there is a trial by military commission.  all the talk about no trial is just people that don't read the thread entirely and/or didn't read the actual bill for themselves and just believe what they see other people are saying and adjust it to their agenda.

Wishful thinking, Colfax. You've proven deft at finger-pointing and conjecture.

But point one finger and four point back at you.

If you can't understand the bill when it's right in front of your face, maybe you can after it's been filtered for you by your pals at Fox News.

You might have to go look up "habeas corpus" first though.

Fox News wrote:

Specter Challenges GOP on Detainee Issue

Thursday, September 28, 2006

WASHINGTON —  True to his reputation as a Republican maverick, Sen. Arlen Specter on Thursday was out front defending the right of suspected terrorists to file court challenges to their detention.

Only three Republicans sided with Specter, R-Pa., as the Senate voted 51-48 against an amendment by him that would have allowed terror suspects to file habeas corpus petitions in court. Specter contends the ability to file such pleas is considered a fundamental legal right and is necessary to uncover abuse.

Others in the GOP caucus said providing terror suspects the right to unlimited appeals weighs down the federal court system.

"This is a constitutional requirement and it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court,"said Specter, a former Philadelphia prosecutor.

After rejecting Specter's amendment, the Senate endorsed, 65-34, President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects. Specter voted in favor of the bill, which would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects and prohibit blatant abuses of detainees. It would grant the president flexibility to decide what interrogation techniques are legally permissible.

I'd ask you to read something else, but it's in the LA Times, and written by a Yale Law professor, who most clearly didn't read the actual bill for himself and is just believing what he sees other people saying and adjusting it to his agenda.

Note, Colfax, that the reason I have to ask you to read these is because you seem not to be able to comprehend the actual bill itself.

I don't understand. Someone, please edumacate me:

A government is taking away a basic right, the right to a fair trial. If there ever was such a thing as a basic right, it used to mean that it applies to everyone. Rich or poor, friend or foe, yellow or red.

I thought the [con] side would be busy stockpiling ammo and moving to a staging area in the hills, ready to exercise their constitutional right to point guns at a government that attempts to infringe on their freedom.

Instead, it seems to be the [lib] side that is holding up the US constitution.

What is happening? What am I missing here?

apollo_fi wrote:

I don't understand. Someone, please edumacate me:

A government is taking away a basic right, the right to a fair trial. If there ever was such a thing as a basic right, it used to mean that it applies to everyone. Rich or poor, friend or foe, yellow or red.

I thought the [con] side would be busy stockpiling ammo and moving to a staging area in the hills, ready to exercise their constitutional right to point guns at a government that attempts to infringe on their freedom.

Instead, it seems to be the [lib] side that is holding up the US constitution.

What is happening? What am I missing here?

YOU GUYS seem to miss that they are being detained as POW's for the DURATION OF THE WAR.  Since it is NOT ILLEGAL to attack the U.S. in a war, they have committed no crimes and therefore DON'T NEED A TRIAL FOR ANYTHING.  WTF? Did we try Nazis detained as POW's DURING the war? No, we (as in the INT'L BODY) tried them the COMMANDERS for WAR CRIMES.  Individual POW's were not tried, ever. 

Under Geneva, they do not get a trial, because they have committed no crime, and you think that this bill just got rid of giving them a fair trial, you are completely and utterly WRONG.  This is old news.  This bill just clarifies that.  I think you all should do yourselves some good and actually READ the Geneva Convention.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm

Wesker...the issue is that the powers granted to them now include the ability to indiscriminantly grab Anyone in the freaking world, label them an enemy combatant, and imprison them for the duration of the war.

Bush has ALREADY DONE THIS to a US CITIZEN, and due to their current credibility, there's no telling as to when they will do that again to further their own agenda.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Tax and spend, tax and spend.......sounds real long term right there libs.

Thats kinda rude to say as it is not true, I wouldn't say that about libs.  Everyone thinks in the long term, you just have a skewed vision of conservatives, sorry.  I fail to see how any Americans civil liberties are at risk here, please tell me how they are again?  I don't really care about terrorists civil liberties, or enemy unlawful combatants that are trying to kill U.S. troops.  So again, what exactly have we lost?

Hey, taxes bring in government revenue so it actually has money to pay for things the nation needs.  Quite a concept, isn't it?  Yes...provide necessary resources to the country for years to come with a surplus of money...as opposed to driving the country into a wartime state and spending us all the way into a $400+ billion deficit while still giving everyone tax breaks.

Tax breaks sound good in the short-term...you don't have to pay as much money when you buy things!  Or come April 15th!  Uh oh...let's look at the country several years from now when all of us will have to pick up the slack left over from gross expenditures badly designed to cover a certain problem for a short amount of time.

And no, I don't have a skewed version of Conservatives.  Being cautious and afraid of change is the very nature of the Conservative idea, and Any change made or effort proposed with a conservative-right slant tends to only focus on short-term goals, such as quick tax breaks, or perhaps a "quick little regime change where we will be welcomed as liberators."

Marconius wrote:

Hey, taxes bring in government revenue so it actually has money to pay for things the nation needs.  Quite a concept, isn't it?  Yes...provide necessary resources to the country for years to come with a surplus of money...as opposed to driving the country into a wartime state and spending us all the way into a $400+ billion deficit while still giving everyone tax breaks.

Tax breaks sound good in the short-term...you don't have to pay as much money when you buy things!  Or come April 15th!  Uh oh...let's look at the country several years from now when all of us will have to pick up the slack left over from gross expenditures badly designed to cover a certain problem for a short amount of time.

And no, I don't have a skewed version of Conservatives.  Being cautious and afraid of change is the very nature of the Conservative idea, and Any change made or effort proposed with a conservative-right slant tends to only focus on short-term goals, such as quick tax breaks, or perhaps a "quick little regime change where we will be welcomed as liberators."

Never said they didn't friend, but spending them so rapidly is not long term (but both repubs and dems do that)......anyways......they aren't tax breaks they are tax rate breaks....lil different.  I disagree I think we need change, but a certain change, how can you tell me what conservative ideals are when you aren't one?  Quick tax breaks......that stimulate the economy on the long term......ok......

And who the FUCK said "quick little regime change" I'm waiting, oh thats right no one said it would be quick......

And another thing, let's look at this bill

The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

OMG, so you really think they are just gonna pick ppl off the streets of Seattle, NY, and LA for fun.....hah, like I said, IF that does happen I will side with you, but for now, thats a little looney.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-30 00:50:51)

Marconius wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Anyone, you really think that will happen, if it does I will definitely side with you, but cmon, I think that would be a little too obvious, *X-Files Music*

A U.S. Citizen, and whom would you be referring to? The one that basically defected and was trying to kill Americans? I have no sympathy for him.

To further their own agenda? Which is? What total control? Get over yourself.

Jose Padilla, and I've already talked about him.  Don't care about him if you don't want to, but it's the Idea that surrounds his detention that should give you pause.  I'm not defending him as a person in any way; his past is despicable.  The point of it all is that he indeed was a US Citizen who had his rights stripped away for no provable reason whatsoever, with no evidence whatsoever, and was given no ability to appeal his case.

Just picked up and thrown in jail while the government racked its brains trying to come up with something to charge him for...

LOL, they racked their brains, you gotta be kidding me, what do you think he was picked up for, because he looked funny!?!??!  I do care about him, yeah he WAS a U.S. citizen, and he DID have his rights stripped, because he was TRYING TO KILL AMERICANS, wtf do you not understand about that, once you do that and side with the terrorists, you are kinda, in a way, renouncing your citizenship, I think its called treason, as to why he was never charged, I don't know,

Here is the bottom line dude, we don't know all the facts surrounding Padilla and may never know, but he was proven to have been linked with trying to kill Americans, and until we know more, thats all we have and we cannot accurately comment any more about him, thats just speculation.  If the government wanted to start rounding up people they would.  I hardly doubt he was picked up for NO REASON at all.

Marconius wrote:

Yeah...we have two separate discussions going and we are answering each other too fast here...

+1 

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-30 00:56:46)

Padilla

Picked up on accusations with no proof.  The accusations are those of high treason, but again, there was no proof nor any evidence suggesting as such.  The "evidence" that the government did have was very shady and would never have held up had he been charged and sent to trial.  They just locked him away for 3 years while they tried to get more evidence (and are still trying...)

Conservatives

Just because you aren't on a political side of something doesn't mean you have to do your best to not understand it.  The reason why I claim to be a liberal is because I've looked over the conservative side and decided that I didn't agree with most of what it harbored...the ideas, the people, the PACs that are part of it all...just not for me.

The "quick little regime change" was direct prod at the mentality of Bush and his cronies three years ago.  "Mission Accomplished" was on the banner behind him at his photo op on the carrier, was it not?  It is indirect sarcasm intended for a direct effect to give my words and point a little more punch.

They didn't know what to expect when they went to Iraq excpt for what they detailed out in the PNAC report.  Step 1 was to remove Saddam.  And he was removed!  They didn't foresee the vast insurgency that rose up due to this sudden instability (hence the liberators comment).  Now we are killing the insurgents and are trying to initiate Parliamentary Policies and Procedures on the new Democratic Iraq...though that has now degraded into a factioned theocracy; two tribes of muslims going against one another fundamentally...I could go on and on, but the majority of the decisions made in all of this are just made with goals that far shorter in length then their impact allows.

First the Patriot Act and now this, way to go America - this is true democracy and justice for all !

A thing that comes to mind as a direct reference is that now all Americans have the same legal protection as the citizens of Mother Russia had ......... 25 years ago !

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Varegg wrote:

First the Patriot Act and now this, way to go America - this is true democracy and justice for all !

A thing that comes to mind as a direct reference is that now all Americans have the same legal protection as the citizens of Mother Russia had ......... 25 years ago !

Yeah, ok troll go back under your bridge.  Want to back that up with facts....?

Than why have most Democrats supported the Patriot act and still do to this day.  I can think of no less than 15 Democratic U.S. Senators off the top of my head that STILL support it to this day.

I highly doubt you've even read the patriot act let alone understand its implications.

The patriot act and the latest bill passed is fact enough dont you think ?

And you are right sir, i haven`t read it in full length - i have read parts of it and have been referred enough from friends living in the US to get a grasp on what this means for legal protection, i have a good level of understanding when it comes to international law since i often enough has to implement it with my work.

And what fact can you back up your idiotic statement with that i dont know what i`m talking about ?


The Detainee bill is a spit in the face from your government and only a threat to those that are or conspire with terrorists you may say - but who decides who to detain ? ...... you feel a relief since you know yourself you are not in the category of people that should feel afraid of getting detained, but how sure can you be ?

Last edited by Varegg (2006-09-30 05:54:10)