It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Senate Bars Detainees From Filing Lawsuits

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Haven't you heard the vast majority of al Qeda come from Saudi Arabia therefore they are not as you content citizens of that country. Nice try at deception though


Have you heard that the only proof required for someone to become an enemy combatant is that the US Admin says they are?

Have you considered what the long term results of giving dictatoral power to the US predient would be?

Can you name a single nation on Earth that was free before the leader was given great powers that stayed free after?




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Haven't you heard the vast majority of al Qeda come from Saudi Arabia therefore they are not as you content citizens of that country. Nice try at deception though

Well unless they come from Guantanamo Bay my point still stands



Originally posted by shots
Further more Al Queda operatives are not POW's the are considered illegal combatants.

Illegal combatants? Whats one of them exactly? Since when does one side of a "war" get to deem the other side as "illegal"? Either they are PoW's of this phony war or they are criminals (hence civilian). You cant have it both ways and the double speak is growing old, fast.


Originally posted by shots
BTW you are lucky you edited your cussing out I was going to file a complaint. You of all pepole should know that ATSNN is held to a higher standard then normal boards since you are running for election.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize you are not allowed to circumvent the censor. Swearing is allowed so long as the censor can edit it out. Thats why there used to be a "turn off censor" option in the Member Store. Keep trying though shots, A+ for effort



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Can you name a single nation on Earth that was free before the leader was given great powers that stayed free after?



Yes the US since we have had several leaders since they started to use them. George Washington convened the first U.S. military tribunal in 1780 I assume you did not know that.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize you are not allowed to circumvent the censor. Swearing is allowed so long as the censor can edit it out.


The censor doesn't work for the ATSNN site (at least it used to not). I would suggest trying to keep foul language completely out of ATSNN.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Do you think I put the # there myself?

I'd suggest sticking to the topic as well dj. Little witch hunt over.

[edit on 15/11/05 by subz]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Illegal combatants? Whats one of them exactly? Since when does one side of a "war" get to deem the other side as "illegal"? Either they are PoW's of this phony war or they are criminals (hence civilian). You cant have it both ways and the double speak is growing old, fast.


Since The 1907 Hague Convention (which the US ratified in 1909) when the hague ruled as to whom can be considered an enemy combatant.


By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between..... those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.

According to the court, unlawful acts of war include "an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property". It noted that the Hague Convention, adopted by the United States in 1909, adopted the pre-existing distinction between lawful and unlawful belligerents, protecting only the former.

www.spectacle.org...




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Do you think I put the # there myself?

[edit on 15/11/05 by subz]


Yup you sure did it clearly stated other then it does now and that was before you edited your post



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Yup you sure did it clearly stated other then it does now and that was before you edited your post

I beg to differ my misguided friend. Just try writing something with the "s" word in it and see what happens. You can edit it out after you see the results, I wont try and lodge a fallacious and malicious complaint.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

I beg to differ my misguided friend. Just try writing something with the "s" word in it and see what happens. You can edit it out after you see the results, I wont try and lodge a fallacious and malicious complaint.



You can do whatever you want, I know what I read, now kindly get back on topic if you do not mind



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
You can do whatever you want, I know what I read, now kindly get back on topic if you do not mind

Typical Troll. Start something you cant finish and then lie when cornered. You know you are in the wrong.

[edit on 15/11/05 by subz]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Illegal combatants? Whats one of them exactly? Since when does one side of a "war" get to deem the other side as "illegal"? Either they are PoW's of this phony war or they are criminals (hence civilian). You cant have it both ways and the double speak is growing old, fast.

Post on the first page by me, subz.
Explanation is clear and concise.
Did you read it?
If you did, seems to me that your questions would have been answered.





seekerof



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Post on the first page by me, subz.
Explanation is clear and concise.
Did you read it?


You missed the most important part.

Even American citizens can be Enemy Combatants, and you don't even have to do anything to become one.

No charges, no trial, only imprisonment as long as they want.

The US Administration will be handed dictatorial powers if this bill passes as is.

Everyone will say that it can't happen here which only makes it more likely.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
No, I missed nothing.
What I posted was self-evident.

For yours and others benefit though, I will post this:
Senators Agree on Detainee Rights: Deal Would Allow Some Court Access


A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise yesterday that would dramatically alter U.S. policy for treating captured terrorist suspects by granting them a final recourse to the federal courts but stripping them of some key legal rights.

The compromise links legislation written by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), which would deny detainees broad access to federal courts, with a new measure authored by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) that would grant detainees the right to appeal the verdict of a military tribunal to a federal appeals court. The deal will come to a vote today, and the authors say they are confident it will pass.






seekerof

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Since The 1907 Hague Convention (which the US ratified in 1909) when the hague ruled as to whom can be considered an enemy combatant.


Look through all of the Hague conventions, and Geneva conventions and not once will you find the term 'Enemy Combatant'.

It is a supposition of what is not said.


CHAPTER I
The qualifications of belligerents

Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer
corps fulfilling the following conditions:


In other words it ONLY applies to non-beligerants, Armies, and beligerants that meet certain standards.

If you don't wear an identifiable uniform, and America accuses you of being a beligerant you only have rights as given as an enemy by military court basicly meaning you have none.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
No, I missed nothing.
What I posted was self-evident.

For yours and others benefit though, I will post this:
Senators Agree on Detainee Rights: Deal Would Allow Some Court Access


A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise yesterday that would dramatically alter U.S. policy for treating captured terrorist suspects by granting them a final recourse to the federal courts but stripping them of some key legal rights.

The compromise links legislation written by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), which would deny detainees broad access to federal courts, with a new measure authored by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) that would grant detainees the right to appeal the verdict of a military tribunal to a federal appeals court. The deal will come to a vote today, and the authors say they are confident it will pass.


Can you explain what good an appeal does to someone not even charged, let alone tried and convicted?

If this becomes law, without any standard of proof, relying on accusations alone, without review or recourse, the Admin can lock up anyone in the world they can get their hands on, including US citizens, and throw away the key.

Effective Judicial powers in the hands of Administration creates Dictatorship no matter if the power is exercized or not.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

as posted by ArchAngel
Can you explain what good an appeal does to someone not even charged, let alone tried and convicted?


In a time of war, what rights do POWs or enemy combatants receive or are allowed, other than to be treated humanely? Let history be your guide, but what type trails did past POWs and enemy combatants recieve? Did they have rights and access to national or federal courts or even military tribunals while the war was still ongoing or were they stuck where they were--in POW camps, etc--till the war ended? Were they charged or convicted while the war was ongoing? Furthermore, Nuremburg Trials ring a bell? You are aware that the Nuremburg Trials were a military tribunal? And charges are handed out at or within military tribunals. A little research on your part will give examples of the type charges leveled.

Be careful how you answer some of those above questions, k, cause we have an abundance of historical evidences to fall back on: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, 1st Gulf War, etc. All of which had POWs and enemy combatants held till the war ended, never convicted, charged, or tried, never having access to national or federal courts or military tribunals till after said conflicts ended. Most never were convicted, charged, or tried---they were simply released from their POW or enemy combatant status.





seekerof

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

cause we have an abundance of historical evidences to fall back on: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, 1st Gulf War, etc. All of which had POWs and enemy combatants held till the war ended


Can you look to those cases and find where an American citizen was held as an enemy combatant without being charged?

We should be drawing a distiction between foreigners, and American citizens here.

While law is being changed on one hand judicial precedant is being established on the other.

Amicus Brief
JOSE PADILLA, Petitioner-Appellee v. COMMANDER C.T. HANFT, USN COMMANDER, CONSOLIDATED NAVAL BRIG, Respondent-Appellant.


Since May 8, 2002 Jose Padilla, an Ameircan citizen, has been held without charges as a supposed Enemy Combatant, and if this law passes he will have no legal way to even be charged with a crime let alone be released.

And the same could happen to you even if you are a denialist.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Seekerof, I have news for you buddy, there is no war.

There was no declaration and there can never be an end to a phoney war against an abstraction. War on Drugs ring any bells for you? Why weren't drug dealers held as enemy combatants by military tribunals and not given the right to trial until that other phoney war was quietly ended?

You are drawing parallels between this phoney war and WW1 and WW2 and you couldn't be any more wrong. Those wars were legitimate wars as in they were declared and the state of war existed between nations. None of those criteria have been met with America's phoney War on Terror.

What's next? War on Crime? Where any one suspected of any crime can be locked up as illegal combatants until some agenda driven regime in Washington declares the War over? How about if the War is never declared over? Perpetual warfare is a cornerstone of Strausian philosophy that the Neocons strive for. You think the War on Terror will ever end? Dont kid yourself



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   

What's next? War on Crime? Where any one suspected of any crime can be locked up as illegal combatants until some agenda driven regime in Washington declares the War over? How about if the War is never declared over? Perpetual warfare is a cornerstone of Strausian philosophy that the Neocons strive for. You think the War on Terror will ever end? Dont kid yourself


When this bill is put together with the Patriot Act, Homeland security Act, and Marshal law and turned loose on the American people it will become a crime to be against anything the State does.

Enemies of the State will be rounded up, and America will never again be a free democracy until after the government is overthrown, and there is no promise what results will be free.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Seekerof, I have news for you buddy, there is no war.

There was no declaration and there can never be an end to a phoney war against an abstraction.


Playing semantics Subz?

By definition it is a war.

war (wôr) n. 1.a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

And be forewarned from now on I will take screen shots, you will not be able to edit them
Then we will see who the liar is.



[edit on 11/16/2005 by shots]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join