Rule by fear or rule by law?
- Thread starter BernOrange
- Start date
regarding this paragraph from the OP
"
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike. "
Please cite where in the commission it says this applies to ANY lawful citizen? show us where in this law it says lawful citizens can be tried in a secret court for speaking out against the government policies
How can anyone write crap/ post crap like this and think no one would read the actual law?
Let me get this straight. in 1999 the Clinton admin gave no bids to KGB to build detention centers beause 7 years later Bush was going to pass the Military Commission Act?
"
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike. "
Please cite where in the commission it says this applies to ANY lawful citizen? show us where in this law it says lawful citizens can be tried in a secret court for speaking out against the government policies
How can anyone write crap/ post crap like this and think no one would read the actual law?
Let me get this straight. in 1999 the Clinton admin gave no bids to KGB to build detention centers beause 7 years later Bush was going to pass the Military Commission Act?
Michael Knight
1,000+ Posts
Who decides whos a "lawful" citizen?
BernOrange
500+ Posts
Bern
"It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant"
Actually it doesn't
"(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."
of course your comeback will be that any Tribunal will do the bidding of the Pres or SecDef. the Tribunals are made up of Military officers.
"It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant"
Actually it doesn't
"(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."
of course your comeback will be that any Tribunal will do the bidding of the Pres or SecDef. the Tribunals are made up of Military officers.
BernOrange
500+ Posts
If the tribunals don't do the bidding of the Pres or SecDef, they can just create another one that will.
johnnyM
I guess you could read enough of my unintelligible post to post to me.
surely you understand the difference? I hope you understand the difference. Please say you understand the difference between asking about a potential law that REQUIRES the USA to follow an UN declaration( the question was did the use of the phrase "requirng the Pres" to follow the declaration mean the USA must meet all the requirments of the declaration. many of which were troubling)
and this issue
which is someone saying the President could ON HIS or HER Own proclaim a US Citizen an unlawful enemy combatant when it clearly says it must be brought before a Tribunal.
The question of whether a Tribunal is likely to do the Pres or Secdef's bidding is a reasonable one but separate from saying the Pres could ON HIS OWN
If one thinks any committee, council, tribunal etc would simply do the bidding is a valid one and could be asked on any similar group. Since the Tribunal is made up of Military officers there is less likelihood IMO
This bill passed both houses with Dems voting for it in both.
There are as many legal scholars defending the MCA as denigrating it
so far I haven't seen ANY meaningful discussions on whether the Global Poverty Act ties USA to the requirements of the Millennium Declaration
but yea sure they are the same
I guess you could read enough of my unintelligible post to post to me.
surely you understand the difference? I hope you understand the difference. Please say you understand the difference between asking about a potential law that REQUIRES the USA to follow an UN declaration( the question was did the use of the phrase "requirng the Pres" to follow the declaration mean the USA must meet all the requirments of the declaration. many of which were troubling)
and this issue
which is someone saying the President could ON HIS or HER Own proclaim a US Citizen an unlawful enemy combatant when it clearly says it must be brought before a Tribunal.
The question of whether a Tribunal is likely to do the Pres or Secdef's bidding is a reasonable one but separate from saying the Pres could ON HIS OWN
If one thinks any committee, council, tribunal etc would simply do the bidding is a valid one and could be asked on any similar group. Since the Tribunal is made up of Military officers there is less likelihood IMO
This bill passed both houses with Dems voting for it in both.
There are as many legal scholars defending the MCA as denigrating it
so far I haven't seen ANY meaningful discussions on whether the Global Poverty Act ties USA to the requirements of the Millennium Declaration
but yea sure they are the same
O
Oilfield
Guest
1) KBR was spun off by Halliburton. You would think this is worth mentioning.
2) Clinton was President in 1999 when they say this began.
3) The Homeland Security Department was not created until 2002.
I could go on but why bother. Does anyone in this country think anymore?
2) Clinton was President in 1999 when they say this began.
3) The Homeland Security Department was not created until 2002.
I could go on but why bother. Does anyone in this country think anymore?
BernOrange
500+ Posts
scottsins, they (ie. military police) can detain anyone that a tribunal targets. Who is going to stop them? Who would even know it happened? Their prisoners don't get to talk to anyone.
Oilfeild, I don't see where any of your comments have any bearing on the fact that the legislation currently in place puts our civil liberties in jeapordy.
Oilfeild, I don't see where any of your comments have any bearing on the fact that the legislation currently in place puts our civil liberties in jeapordy.
BattleshipTexas
1,000+ Posts
johnnyM
why is it necessary for you to repeatedly insult me and curse at me? You should know it diminishes anything you are trying to say.
Your post :
"god you're STILL ******* wrong about that one. holy ****. can you honestly not read or do you just not care to be correct?
it doesn't REQUIRE the USA or the President to follow ANY UN DECLARATION OR GOAL. i thought that was PAINFULLY clear. i guess not. "
Johnny M here is a clue, YOU posting it over and over doesn't make it so. Can you offer any credible proof?
If you post to me again could you try to post in a mature civil manner? Did it ever occur to you that all of us are equally entitled to our opinions and to put those opinions forth in a public forum? I think that might be mentioned somewhere in our Constitution.
why is it necessary for you to repeatedly insult me and curse at me? You should know it diminishes anything you are trying to say.
Your post :
"god you're STILL ******* wrong about that one. holy ****. can you honestly not read or do you just not care to be correct?
it doesn't REQUIRE the USA or the President to follow ANY UN DECLARATION OR GOAL. i thought that was PAINFULLY clear. i guess not. "
Johnny M here is a clue, YOU posting it over and over doesn't make it so. Can you offer any credible proof?
If you post to me again could you try to post in a mature civil manner? Did it ever occur to you that all of us are equally entitled to our opinions and to put those opinions forth in a public forum? I think that might be mentioned somewhere in our Constitution.
Gone To Texas
500+ Posts
I think the MCA is a piece of garbage law, but I don't believe there is any organized conspiracy to round up Americans in airplane hangar-sized detention facilities.
That said, the fact that DHS chose the acronym ENDGAME for this program is quite disturbing.
That said, the fact that DHS chose the acronym ENDGAME for this program is quite disturbing.
Weekly Prediction Contest
CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread
Recent Threads
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
-
Protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights
- Started by Austin_Bill
- Replies: 791
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
