Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 11

 

2006-09-29 12:57:37
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

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.
I don't think most do, thats why we have campaigns and elections so a Candidate can display his platform and debate his views.
Please. Political stances, forward-looking statements, and campaign promises are not the same as a politician's actions while in office.
Ever hear of checks and balances?

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

And what are your comments and thoughts on the bill and the passage thereof, Kmarion?
As far as the bill I haven't had a chance to look into it deeply myself. I can say it's a fine line that needs to be walked. It's tough to fight an enemy that follows no rules and does whatever it takes to promote their cause while you are held accountable at every turn. I have stated numerous times that I do not agree to holding anyone indefinetly without a trial. I am well aware of what gates can be opened with "general" language.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-09-29 12:57:47
tehmoogles
Don't touch the pom-pom!
+7|6702
Glad I'm not American or living there.
2006-09-29 12:58:12
=CA=lamcrmbem
Member
+16|6442|San Diego, CA

Lazzars wrote:

Colfax wrote:

so where does a law abiding citizen fit into that definition?
here

"`(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);"


since that is what this will effectively be, kidnapping, lawful kidnapping
No...notice the first line...engaged in hostilities (shooting, bombing, killing) or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities (gave money, materiel, intelligence, etc to the enemy). 

These people ARE NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.  Quit the hysterics and read!  We can all go nuts about what could happen and take leave of reality....or we can read what it says and take it at face value.
2006-09-29 12:58:14
Colfax
PR Only
+70|6636|United States - Illinois

Lazzars wrote:

Colfax wrote:

so where does a law abiding citizen fit into that definition?
here

"`(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
Stop saying president.  the president is not involved here.  You do know congress writes these bills right.  Congress just passed it.  A military commision decides these things.  Not the president.

Also it doesn say "suspect" it says "has engaged in hostilities".

You people honestly make me sick its right there and you still cant see it
2006-09-29 12:58:27
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6492|Los Angeles

Colfax wrote:

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.
Seems to define enemy combatant pretty well to me....

so where does a law abiding citizen fit into that definition?
See highlight above. Also, the below, from page 65 of the PDF:

Bill H.R. 6166 in support of tyranny and torture wrote:

‘‘(2) PROTECTED PERSON.—The term ‘protected person’ means any person entitled to protection under one or more of the Geneva Conventions, including—
(A) civilians not taking an active part in hostilities;
What exactly is meant by "hostilities" in both of the above? Well, since it's not defined, that would allow the Pentagon to define it however they felt like it, and invoke it in any situation.

"Why am I being detained and tortured with no trial?"

"Because you're taking part in hostilities."

"Hostilities? Where is the definition of that term?"

"In our heads. Just trust us. This is not V for Vendetta."
2006-09-29 13:00:03
[n00b]Tyler
Banned
+505|6586|Iceland

Colfax wrote:

[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.
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.
U get payed to post here? lol I want that!
And I attack ppl all the time if u call that attacking.

And yes on this topic: the US goverment is fucking sick and sould be shot.
and if u gonna reply with OMFG U SUPPORT TERRORISTS no they sould [and are] be shot too.
2006-09-29 13:00:29
Wasder
Resident Emo Hater
+139|6667|Moscow, Russia
What I really don't understand is why do the American citizens deserve a trial by jury and "suspected terrorists" don't? Aren't they people too? And all these "interrogation techniques" are just tortures, and they are severe violations of the Geneva convention. This bill is extremely fucked up. I can't believe it is the United States of America, where such bills become laws.
When I watched the trailer of "Freedom to Fascism" some days ago, I didn't believe the most part of it. Now I'm convinced this is the direction you're moving towards, and I feel sorry for "The Land Of The Free".
2006-09-29 13:01:30
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6492|Los Angeles

=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:

Lazzars wrote:

Colfax wrote:

so where does a law abiding citizen fit into that definition?
here

"`(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);"


since that is what this will effectively be, kidnapping, lawful kidnapping
No...notice the first line...engaged in hostilities (shooting, bombing, killing) or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities (gave money, materiel, intelligence, etc to the enemy). 

These people ARE NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.  Quit the hysterics and read!  We can all go nuts about what could happen and take leave of reality....or we can read what it says and take it at face value.
Where do you get the "shooting, bombing, killing" part?
2006-09-29 13:02:40
Lazzars
Member
+4|6639

Colfax wrote:

Also it doesn say "suspect" it says "has engaged in hostilities".
so your saying

and you can say this with 100% confidence

that this law wouldn't be used to torture those who are suspected as terrorists and who are classed as combatents before it has been proven as such?

the use of torture is not to get information about the organisation, they change daily and any information they did get wouldn't be worth torturing someone for

no

the torture is to get them to admit that they are terrorists to make the whole process nice and legal
2006-09-29 13:03:23
Colfax
PR Only
+70|6636|United States - Illinois

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Colfax wrote:

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.
Seems to define enemy combatant pretty well to me....

so where does a law abiding citizen fit into that definition?
See highlight above. Also, the below, from page 65 of the PDF:

Bill H.R. 6166 in support of tyranny and torture wrote:

‘‘(2) PROTECTED PERSON.—The term ‘protected person’ means any person entitled to protection under one or more of the Geneva Conventions, including—
(A) civilians not taking an active part in hostilities;
What exactly is meant by "hostilities" in both of the above? Well, since it's not defined, that would allow the Pentagon to define it however they felt like it, and invoke it in any situation.

"Why am I being detained and tortured with no trial?"

"Because you're taking part in hostilities."

"Hostilities? Where is the definition of that term?"

"In our heads. Just trust us. This is not V for Vendetta."

=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:

No...notice the first line...engaged in hostilities (shooting, bombing, killing) or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities (gave money, materiel, intelligence, etc to the enemy).
=hostilities
2006-09-29 13:03:36
tehmoogles
Don't touch the pom-pom!
+7|6702
Just don't annoy the President and you're fine.

By Santa, America is looking more and more like a corrupt/opressive dictatorship, masquerading as a democracy.
2006-09-29 13:03:36
=CA=lamcrmbem
Member
+16|6442|San Diego, CA

Wasder wrote:

What I really don't understand is why do the American citizens deserve a trial by jury and "suspected terrorists" don't? Aren't they people too? And all these "interrogation techniques" are just tortures, and they are severe violations of the Geneva convention. This bill is extremely fucked up. I can't believe it is the United States of America, where such bills become laws.
When I watched the trailer of "Freedom to Fascism" some days ago, I didn't believe the most part of it. Now I'm convinced this is the direction you're moving towards, and I feel sorry for "The Land Of The Free".
American's deserve a trial by jury because that's what OUR consitution says.  Suspected Terrorists are not citizens and therefore are not afforded the same protections.  Now if that person is on our soil and is attacking our people then they are going to be taken care of by us.  If they're country wants them back they can try to extridite them like any other criminal.  You don't see the president of Afghanistan asking for these people back do you?  If he wanted them he could probably get them.
2006-09-29 13:06:22
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Wasder wrote:

What I really don't understand is why do the American citizens deserve a trial by jury and "suspected terrorists" don't? Aren't they people too? And all these "interrogation techniques" are just tortures, and they are severe violations of the Geneva convention. This bill is extremely fucked up. I can't believe it is the United States of America, where such bills become laws.
When I watched the trailer of "Freedom to Fascism" some days ago, I didn't believe the most part of it. Now I'm convinced this is the direction you're moving towards, and I feel sorry for "The Land Of The Free".
The Geneva convention would be wonderful if both sides abided by it. This is the problem, our intelligence people are often handcuffed when compared to what the enemy is allowed to do.

This is a fact and not my opinion.(I can already hear the"So you lower yourself to their level" people typing away).
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-09-29 13:06:24
[n00b]Tyler
Banned
+505|6586|Iceland

=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:

If he wanted them he could probably get them.
he could?
2006-09-29 13:06:44
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6547
Great post Shipbuilder. The United States of America officially died with the passing of that bill. The power to indefinitely hold ANYONE without trial, with the ability to carry out very broadly defined coercion techniques, concentrated in the hands of those who are generally the most corrupt in the country - politicians. Hang your heads in shame and don't expect any sympathy when the terrorists do likewise to your brethren. You are now morally equivalent.
2006-09-29 13:07:00
=CA=lamcrmbem
Member
+16|6442|San Diego, CA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:

Lazzars wrote:


here

"`(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);"


since that is what this will effectively be, kidnapping, lawful kidnapping
No...notice the first line...engaged in hostilities (shooting, bombing, killing) or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities (gave money, materiel, intelligence, etc to the enemy). 

These people ARE NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.  Quit the hysterics and read!  We can all go nuts about what could happen and take leave of reality....or we can read what it says and take it at face value.
Where do you get the "shooting, bombing, killing" part?
Ok...since you're too thick or just being disagreable...

Main Entry: hos·til·i·ty (From the Meriam Webster Dictionary)
Pronunciation: hä-'sti-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : deep-seated usually mutual ill will b (1) : hostile action (2) plural : overt acts of warfare : WAR

Shooting, Bombing, Killing = WARFARE........FTW
2006-09-29 13:07:01
jonsimon
Member
+224|6487
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."


First they came for the Terrorists, but I was not a terrorist - so I did not speak out...
2006-09-29 13:07:33
E1_ned
Member
+8|6486|netherlands
wow.....
America has become a banana republic itself

if there are no more terrorists left.... who's next..... if YOU are arrested for something YOU didn't do. are you going to be deprived of sleep???? just to get a confession????

these types of confessions are NOT reliable at all..... you'd tell 'em everything they want to hear, if your nipples are in a twist
2006-09-29 13:09:12
=CA=lamcrmbem
Member
+16|6442|San Diego, CA

CameronPoe wrote:

Great post Shipbuilder. The United States of America officially died with the passing of that bill. The power to indefinitely hold ANYONE without trial, with the ability to carry out very broadly defined coercion techniques, concentrated in the hands of those who are generally the most corrupt in the country - politicians. Hang your heads in shame and don't expect any sympathy when the terrorists do likewise to your brethren. You are now morally equivalent.
Obviously you havn't read the whole thread....we just cover this whole "ANYONE" is a target BS.
2006-09-29 13:09:38
PRiMACORD
Member
+190|6617|Home of the Escalade Herds

GATOR591957 wrote:

Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves.
Yep.

Colfax wrote:

Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:

Colfax wrote:

when we will kill 6 million Jews we can come back to this comment.
Sad thing is I could see it happening... but more secretly (ie. Underground), and replace Jews with anyone living in the East.
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'

You have a sick mind set man i'm sorry
I can't count the amount of times i've heard fellow Americans say something to the tune of "bomb them all". I'm not saying it's going to happen but if it did, the righties would justify it like they do everything else.
2006-09-29 13:10:12
Colfax
PR Only
+70|6636|United States - Illinois
I'm done with this topic you guys are set in your ways and can't even see something right infront of your face.

yes i am getting paid to post here (technically)  posting here isnt my job i am just at my job where i get paid and i am posting here.

Ship_Builder i'm sry you're to dumb to understand the hostilities =(shooting, bombing, killing) or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities (gave money, materiel, intelligence, etc to the enemy).

Colfax has disconnected from this thread
2006-09-29 13:11:21
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6547

=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Great post Shipbuilder. The United States of America officially died with the passing of that bill. The power to indefinitely hold ANYONE without trial, with the ability to carry out very broadly defined coercion techniques, concentrated in the hands of those who are generally the most corrupt in the country - politicians. Hang your heads in shame and don't expect any sympathy when the terrorists do likewise to your brethren. You are now morally equivalent.
Obviously you havn't read the whole thread....we just cover this whole "ANYONE" is a target BS.
Fair enough - it doesn't diminish my point much about how the government of the USA is now morally equivalent to Al Qaeda. Torture is torture is torture. Varying degrees is just nitpicking. Indefinite detention without trial is just kidnapping. It seems now that the USSR is out of the picture USA is happy to indulge in all sorts of moral and ethical taboo breaking now.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-29 13:14:31)

2006-09-29 13:12:48
=CA=lamcrmbem
Member
+16|6442|San Diego, CA

CameronPoe wrote:

=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Great post Shipbuilder. The United States of America officially died with the passing of that bill. The power to indefinitely hold ANYONE without trial, with the ability to carry out very broadly defined coercion techniques, concentrated in the hands of those who are generally the most corrupt in the country - politicians. Hang your heads in shame and don't expect any sympathy when the terrorists do likewise to your brethren. You are now morally equivalent.
Obviously you havn't read the whole thread....we just cover this whole "ANYONE" is a target BS.
Fair enough - it doesn't diminish my point much about how the government of the USA is now morally equivalent to Al Qaeda.
Actually I am a little shakey on that...How is the heck is the US on the same moral level as Al Qaeda.
2006-09-29 13:14:17
jonsimon
Member
+224|6487
Material Hostilities, better stop giving to charity or lending friends money. Never know if one of them is a terrorist.
2006-09-29 13:14:19
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6701|Wilmington, DE, US
How many of you are going to defend it when it just explicitly says "You have no rights"

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard