trhe amin thign i'mworried abotu with that si the foriegn citizens in their own coutnries. that is technically illegal unless they are captured in war. ( national sovriegnity is why, the law enforcement of a coutnry should be able to dela with criminals on tehir own territor). the thing is, if they can just arrets anyone anywhere around the globe and bug them away for indefinate periods, without the right to challenge their detentions r anything else, then america is going to eb demonised very quickly.
You can't spell.samfink wrote:
trhe amin thign i'mworried abotu with that si the foriegn citizens in their own coutnries. that is technically illegal unless they are captured in war. ( national sovriegnity is why, the law enforcement of a coutnry should be able to dela with criminals on tehir own territor). the thing is, if they can just arrets anyone anywhere around the globe and bug them away for indefinate periods, without the right to challenge their detentions r anything else, then america is going to eb demonised very quickly.
I just want to see the wording of the bill i think ship builder is blowing the wording out of proportion
Done. see OP.Colfax wrote:
Lets see the bill someone find it and post it (in full)
So we can see the wording
What does FTW stand for?
WTF? Spell check? Re-Write it spelling correctly, and I will read your commentsamfink wrote:
trhe amin thign i'mworried abotu with that si the foriegn citizens in their own coutnries. that is technically illegal unless they are captured in war. ( national sovriegnity is why, the law enforcement of a coutnry should be able to dela with criminals on tehir own territor). the thing is, if they can just arrets anyone anywhere around the globe and bug them away for indefinate periods, without the right to challenge their detentions r anything else, then america is going to eb demonised very quickly.
For the winweamo8 wrote:
What does FTW stand for?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
*sigh* obviously you don't read every word... And just read what you want.Colfax wrote:
Where does this kind of idiotic mindset come from. You are saying that the U.S. is going to kill millions of people for no reason just because they are form the 'East'Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:
Sad thing is I could see it happening... but more secretly (ie. Underground), and replace Jews with anyone living in the East.Colfax wrote:
when we will kill 6 million Jews we can come back to this comment.
You have a sick mind set man i'm sorry
I never said that IT WILL HAPPEN; I said I could see it happening...
All it takes is some extreme high powered political figure to start this. There are tons of people who would just follow orders and not care... (Pretty much every country's military is run like that)
For example: If an officer in Iraq said 'Shoot that unarmed lady because she's a threat. Someone would do it. Some would be against this. but in the end, someone would do it.
and the reason I put 'Underground' is because the general population in the US would be against this.
But if the majority of people didn't know about it, then it wouldn't be stopped.
And if the media found out, there'd be people claiming that 'The media is just lying'
So ya I could see it happening...
Has no one heard of Google?weamo8 wrote:
What does FTW stand for?
I'm still trying to figure out your original assertion that the bill extends to American CITIZENS. Because everything you posted doesn't say that. It says legal resident of the US (i.e. people here on green cards). The american citizen is still protected by the constitution with the right to a trial by jury.
but before you saidColfax wrote:
I just want to see the wording of the bill i think ship builder is blowing the wording out of proportion
How do you know it "isn't the case" if you hadn't read the bill? Personally I prefer not to just blindly trust those in power, but to evaluate based on evidence.Colfax wrote:
Its not gonna be like V for Vendetta. If you have seen this movie it protrays the America you descride we are headin towards. This isn't the case.
omfg has to be the worst grammar i have seen in my lifesamfink wrote:
trhe amin thign i'mworried abotu with that si the foriegn citizens in their own coutnries. that is technically illegal unless they are captured in war. ( national sovriegnity is why, the law enforcement of a coutnry should be able to dela with criminals on tehir own territor). the thing is, if they can just arrets anyone anywhere around the globe and bug them away for indefinate periods, without the right to challenge their detentions r anything else, then america is going to eb demonised very quickly.
The American Government now has the power to do anything. Anyone who says otherwise may be summarily jailed and executed.
Seems to define enemy combatant pretty well to me....Military Commissions Act of 2006 wrote:
1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.
`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
so where does a law abiding citizen fit into that definition?
I don't think most do, thats why we have campaigns and elections so a Candidate can display his platform and debate his views. There is a fine line between scrutiny and paranoia.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
How do you know it "isn't the case" if you hadn't read the bill? Personally I prefer not to just blindly trust those in power, but to evaluate based on evidence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So I moved to the states, I wouldn't be protected... That's sick (Sick as in disgusting, and evil and vile... Not a teenagers way to say 'cool').=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out your original assertion that the bill extends to American CITIZENS. Because everything you posted doesn't say that. It says legal resident of the US (i.e. people here on green cards). The american citizen is still protected by the constitution with the right to a trial by jury.
Yeah, but you're not an unlawful enemy combatant nor trying to help out the enemy....you're all good!Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:
So I moved to the states, I wouldn't be protected... That's sick (Sick as in disgusting, and evil and vile... Not a teenagers way to say 'cool').=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out your original assertion that the bill extends to American CITIZENS. Because everything you posted doesn't say that. It says legal resident of the US (i.e. people here on green cards). The american citizen is still protected by the constitution with the right to a trial by jury.
The problem is it's already happened...José Padilla, as terrible as the guy is, was a US Citizen who was stripped of his rights and thrown straight into jail with no charges. He was not allowed to appeal, not allowed to see any evidence held against him, and the government just kept him there as an "enemy combatant" even though they could never turn up enough evidence to prove it.
The credibility of this current administration just points to the inherent abuse that can occur, despite our "God damned piece of paper" rights. It's already happened once; they've already abused it...and now Congress is just making it legal for them to do it again.
The credibility of this current administration just points to the inherent abuse that can occur, despite our "God damned piece of paper" rights. It's already happened once; they've already abused it...and now Congress is just making it legal for them to do it again.
your sig is rather lame and extreme, plus do u sit here all day defending America on a BF2 forum?Colfax wrote:
Seems to define enemy combatant pretty well to me....Military Commissions Act of 2006 wrote:
1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.
`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
so where does a law abiding citizen fit into that definition?
Where America stands today: They have the most dumbest president EVER.
Please. Political stances, forward-looking statements, and campaign promises are not the same as a politician's actions while in office.Kmarion wrote:
I don't think most do, thats why we have campaigns and elections so a Candidate can display his platform and debate his views.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
How do you know it "isn't the case" if you hadn't read the bill? Personally I prefer not to just blindly trust those in power, but to evaluate based on evidence.
And what are your comments and thoughts on the bill and the passage thereof, Kmarion?
Ya but all they have to do is say I am... that's the problem.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Yeah, but you're not an unlawful enemy combatant nor trying to help out the enemy....you're all good!Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:
So I moved to the states, I wouldn't be protected... That's sick (Sick as in disgusting, and evil and vile... Not a teenagers way to say 'cool').=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out your original assertion that the bill extends to American CITIZENS. Because everything you posted doesn't say that. It says legal resident of the US (i.e. people here on green cards). The american citizen is still protected by the constitution with the right to a trial by jury.
lol, too easy.[n00b]Tyler wrote:
Where America stands today: They have the most dumbest president EVER.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
hereColfax wrote:
so where does a law abiding citizen fit into that definition?
"`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, AL Qaeda, or associated forces);"
its down to the final word of your president, and if he says they fall into this category (even if there isn't sufficient evidence to say they do) this new bill applies to them regardless
this means that they can just go about breaking the bill of human rights however they like without regard to everything that has gone before
just one more step towards a police state
currently people they suspect to be terrorists can't be tortured lawfully anywhere else in the western world however much those in power think it might help, this is because we hold the moral high ground
if you denounce kidnappers, who take their victims and hide them away in some drab basement far from help then torture them for any information they can get or hold them to political ransom then you cannot commit the same crimes yourself
since that is what this will effectively be, kidnapping, lawful kidnapping
Well saidLazzars wrote:
since that is what this will effectively be, kidnapping, lawful kidnapping
So instead of commenting on topic you attack my sig? Wow man way to contribute. I do browse the forums all day. Sorry the housing market is slow right now and therefore i am slow at work. So I'm not only defending my country and my president i am also getting payed to do it.[n00b]Tyler wrote:
your sig is rather lame and extreme, plus do u sit here all day defending America on a BF2 forum?
Where America stands today: They have the most dumbest president EVER.