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.

 

Congress are going to pass a bill today, that will change your world

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Darkbluesky, you didn't answered me...


Not quite - you need to read the first section of the Act - Definitions, Applicability, Purpose etc. The entire Act is Applicable only to "Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants" see Subchapter 1, section 948b.


You're right that this chapter only refer ``officialy`` to Alien Unlawful Enemy Combattants, but why do they say this:

``(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.--Any person(alien, why don't they just say alien if they are the only targeted?) subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.


See, aliens can't breach allegiance nor duty to the US because they are ALIENS, this is pure NON-SENS. Allegiance and duty to the US is strictly for US citizens, it's just evident. So why they use the words ALLEGIANCE and DUTY if it's not aimed at US citizens? Anyway, if they want to declare someone an alien enemy combattant, nobody will stop them.

Also, I found this...


``(B) Evidence shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or other authorization.


So they can take anything against you, even if when they did it, it was illegal.

Also...

(a) IN GENERAL.--No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in
any court of the United States or its States or territories.


NO PERSON. Alien, US citizens, the pope or Bugs Bunny, NO PERSON. And it's not under chapter X, it's under chapter 5: Treaty obligations not establishing grounds for certain claims.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Vitchilo]


Vithilo,

Your quote:


You're right that this chapter only refer ``officialy`` to Alien Unlawful Enemy Combattants, but why do they say this:

``(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.--Any person(alien, why don't they just say alien if they are the only targeted?) subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.


I'm not a lawyer, but I have a great deal of experience, because of my profession, in reading and interpreting codified laws. They are obtuse, akward and difficult to interpret. They are loooong. To shorten them, law writers start by defining what the law is about (Purpose), what
certain terms mean (Definitions), and to whom the laws apply (Applicability)

The important words are in in your quote Subject to this Chapter... The entire chapter applies unambiguously to ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants. Alien unlawful enemy combants are the "Any person subject to the Chapter"

I can easily come up with 10 examples of non-US citizen who by aiding and assisting an enemy of he US would be breaching allegiance or duty to the US.

No person can invoke the Geneva Conventions in a court of the US. The Geneva Conventions are intended for international tribunals. Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants will be tried by military Commissions not US Courts. Persons tried in US Courts (US Citizens [non-military] and foreign nationals) that are deemed inappropriate for military commissions will have the full protections of the US Constitution. Thats the way its always been. When's the last time you heard a defendant in a murder trial in US courts claim his treatment did not conform to the Geneva Conventions.

Look... The Act will likely get recinded as soon as it goes to the Supreme Court, as it surely will. I agree that it flies in the face of many of the moral and legal the priniples my country was founded on.

My only point in arguing the issue is to supress the frenzy being whipped up by those who claim it will result in Bush's brownshirts rounding-up up and torturing US citizens.

That is all.




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
But why do they use the words allegiance and duty to the US? Is it an error? Anyway, Bush has signed a signing statement, so he can say which part of this law he likes or not. So he can say anyone can be suspended their right of Habeas Corpus. And the Supreme Court is ruled by the people Bush placed himself there, so I wouldn't count much on them.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
But why do they use the words allegiance and duty to the US? Is it an error? Anyway, Bush has signed a signing statement, so he can say which part of this law he likes or not. So he can say anyone can be suspended their right of Habeas Corpus. And the Supreme Court is ruled by the people Bush placed himself there, so I wouldn't count much on them.


Because there are surely a great deal of potential circumstances where a non-US citizen may be required to claim allegiance or Duty to the US.

As an example .... an unnaturalized immigrant working towards becoming a US citizen who is in the military or works in customs, at a police dept., air traffic control, etc.?

bottom line..if you're not a US citizen, and deemed an alien unlawful enemy combatant, you can be tried by military commission. And note...the Act differentiates between Lawful and UN lawful

I think that kills this thread.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   


It is amazing - Earlier, in this very thread, someone (I forget who) cited Jose Padilla as an example of a US Citizen being unlawfully detained. I alerted him that the SC ruled on it, found it uncostitutional and forced the Bush Admin. to formally charge him give him a trial with Full Constitutional Rights afforded him as a US citizen.


Umm....that would be me darkbluesky......those of you you still believe this law is benign are deluding yourselves.....if anyone of you are attorney's or legal scholars I would give more wieght to what you assert...but if your not an attorney or legal scholar then anyone would logically conclude that someone with a legal backround regarding legal matters opinion is worth more than someone who has no legal backround. So your interpretation of the law are worthless when compared to someone who is an attorney or legal scholar. Unless you can prove your an attorney.

The ACLU:


"The president can now - with the approval of Congress - indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions. Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act."


Law Professor:


According to Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at George Washington University, "anyone" in America can be deemed an enemy combatant by Pres. Bush or someone that he appoints to a certain tribunal.


Congressman Dennis Kucinich:


"The second point: H.R. 6166 and S. 3930 cast a wide net, in defining unlawful enemy combatants, that would include any American supporter of a national liberation movement which is seeking to overthrow a US Government-supported despot. For instance, with such a loose definition, the thousands of Americans, many of whom are church clergy, who provided support to the armed and unarmed opposition to the deposed dictatorships of El Salvador and Nicaragua, could have been designated as unlawful enemy combatants.


And as far as Jose Padilla here is what another law professor stated:


When the Supreme Court declined to hear the Padilla case Monday, the decision was widely reported as a win for the Bush Administration. The reporting was only half right. To be sure, the government sidestepped immediate Supreme Court scrutiny of one of the most extreme legal tactics in the war on terror: the indefinite imprisonment, without charge or trial, of American citizens suspected of associating with enemies of the state. But in a carefully worded paragraph near the end of a brief concurrence, Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Stevens, warned the government that its grace period is over.

jurist.law.pitt.edu...

So..... darkbluesky.... the link you posted to me regarding Jose Padilla only delt with him being held without charge or trial and not the constitutional question of the legality of it.


June 28, 2004: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York.

en.wikipedia.org...


Sept. 9, 2005: A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the government can continue to hold Padilla indefinitely.
en.wikipedia.org...

So the supreme court never settled this matter because the bush admin never wanted it challenged in the supreme court.....that is why H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006 was introduced and passed as law to either an unsuspecting congress or a complicit congress....because GWB and his admin knew it would never pass constitutional muster in the supreme court.

So instead of giving your opinions of what H.R. 6166 states give us some opinions of someone with a legal backround.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
darkbluesky

I will like to ask you a question, but before I am going to agree that the bill will be scrutinized and certain provision will be made to safeguard American citizens.

Just like congress did with the patriot act, at least I hope so.

Do you believe that the bill and many other laws that have been passed by the president with congress approval are in the best interest of the American people?

And why.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr

So the supreme court never settled this matter because the bush admin never wanted it challenged in the supreme court.....that is why H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006 was introduced and passed as law to either an unsuspecting congress or a complicit congress....because GWB and his admin knew it would never pass constitutional muster in the supreme court.


They settled the issue to the extent that Mr. Padilla was placed into the US legal system, and no longer detained without charges and representation.

You are 100% correct when you say this was the catalyst for the Military Comissions Act.



So instead of giving your opinions of what H.R. 6166 states give us some opinions of someone with a legal backround.


I can read and comprehend what written words mean. Thats all thats needed to undestand the law. But if you insist upon me citing the opinions of legal professionals I could fill page after page of links. I'll offer just a few here. I'm sure you know how to Google.

www-rcf.usc.edu...
www.bepress.com...

You seem to have educated yourself a great deal since yesterday regarding Mr. Padilla and his attorneys appeal to the US Supreme Court. I'm impressed, after all...this place is all about denying ignorance.

one more for good measure....

www.usafa.af.mil...



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
darkbluesky

I will like to ask you a question, but before I am going to agree that the bill will be scrutinized and certain provision will be made to safeguard American citizens.

Just like congress did with the patriot act, at least I hope so.

Do you believe that the bill and many other laws that have been passed by the president with congress approval are in the best interest of the American people?

And why.


Marg,

I do believe they are in the interest of the vast majority of US citizens because:

1) they are intended to prevent radical extremists from perpetrating addional crimes against US citzens on US soil.

2) They will be relaxed/recinded over time just as the original suspension of habeas corpus was after the civil war

Let me add that I dont subscribe to the theories that 9/11 was an inside job or a muslim plot kown about before hand, but allowed to occur by the govt. I know I'm in a minority here, but its my position.

The govt has many layers, plans, and strategies, but killing its own citizens indiscrimanantly is not one of them IMHO.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
This law can and will one day be used by a federal prosecutor to put away someone they want badly enough. For now that is the main goal of the law. Ther was nothing in our laws that needed to be changed to fight the war on terror. We have always been able to deal with that problem.

Why people cannot see the governement is ruining our freedom and making this country ready for a police state I cannot fathom the lack of imagination that is being shown.

To all the right wing fundamentalists. Do you feel comfortable letting a Bill Clinton have this power? Or worst, how about someone with Adolf Hitlers personality, someone like that can very easliy hide who he is until they are in power. The tools that are in place leave the door to abuse open too much. You dont think a maniac could come to power in this country? You really want to test those waters? They could open that door the rest of the way quite easily.

The slope has become so slippery we cant help but to slide down the hill.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Umm....that would be me darkbluesky......those of you you still believe this law is benign are deluding yourselves.....if anyone of you are attorney's or legal scholars I would give more wieght to what you assert...but if your not an attorney or legal scholar then anyone would logically conclude that someone with a legal backround regarding legal matters opinion is worth more than someone who has no legal backround. So your interpretation of the law are worthless when compared to someone who is an attorney or legal scholar. Unless you can prove your an attorney.

The ACLU:


"The president can now - with the approval of Congress - indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions. Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act."


This is true - the US govt can indefinately hold people without charge.......Last I knew, Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants are PEOPLE!


Law Professor:


According to Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at George Washington University, "anyone" in America can be deemed an enemy combatant by Pres. Bush or someone that he appoints to a certain tribunal.


Why is "anyone" in quotes? Is "anyone" the only word of Mr. Turley being quoted here? I can read, and I dont read anything in the Act that says this. It can be interpretted in different ways but ALL laws are interpretted everyday. Thats what courts do!



Congressman Dennis Kucinich:


"The second point: H.R. 6166 and S. 3930 cast a wide net, in defining unlawful enemy combatants, that would include any American supporter of a national liberation movement which is seeking to overthrow a US Government-supported despot. For instance, with such a loose definition, the thousands of Americans, many of whom are church clergy, who provided support to the armed and unarmed opposition to the deposed dictatorships of El Salvador and Nicaragua, could have been designated as unlawful enemy combatants.


I adressed Kucinichs' staement yesterday. Not sure if it was you who brought it up or someone else. Nevertheless, this is his opinion/interpretation. Show me this guys legal credentials.


And as far as Jose Padilla here is what another law professor stated:


When the Supreme Court declined to hear the Padilla case Monday, the decision was widely reported as a win for the Bush Administration. The reporting was only half right. To be sure, the government sidestepped immediate Supreme Court scrutiny of one of the most extreme legal tactics in the war on terror: the indefinite imprisonment, without charge or trial, of American citizens suspected of associating with enemies of the state. But in a carefully worded paragraph near the end of a brief concurrence, Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Stevens, warned the government that its grace period is over.


This is unrelated to the decision I referenced. It's a different appeal.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
This law can and will one day be used by a federal prosecutor to put away someone they want badly enough. For now that is the main goal of the law. Ther was nothing in our laws that needed to be changed to fight the war on terror. We have always been able to deal with that problem.


We didnt seem to be able to deal w/ it 9/11/01



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

We didnt seem to be able to deal w/ it 9/11/01



We chose not to deal with it on 9/11. After all that has happened, after the way we have been misled, you still believe this governement did not have its hand in 9/11. You should no better, if you know military aviation and the way hijackings have been delt with in the past. 9/11 is a whole other issue.

Do you know what the motive of terrorism is beside to create terror? It is to get the most powerful nations help in dealing with their problem. It wasnt because they hate our freedoms or think we are decadent. It is to get us and Isreal out of their countries.

The group you think did 9/11 fully understood what an operation like that would have given us the excuse to run them down. That is why they always struck outside the US, or struck our military. Do you people not use your deductive powers anymore, or are you doomed to repeat what the corporate run government tells you?

Edit to add: what good does our losing our freedoms and having a CIA type agency spying on Americans supposed to prevent 9/11 anyway?



[edit on 18-10-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by darkbluesky

We didnt seem to be able to deal w/ it 9/11/01



We chose not to deal with it on 9/11. After all that has happened, after the way we have been misled, you still believe this governement did not have its hand in 9/11.



[edit on 18-10-2006 by LoneGunMan]


Yes, I believe the US government did not conspire to kill or allow the deaths of 3,000 US citizens.

You and I will never agree on this point. As I stated before, I think the Act is not up to US standards of moral and ethical behavior and it will be modified or struck down by the Supreme Court.

The reason I argue the point is to counter those who are convinced this is the begining of a facist police state where citizens will be dragged from their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen, or heard from again.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Also, when you start from the point that 9/11 was an inside job, everything is fitting. One thing about 9/11 you CAN'T deny, darkbluesky, it's the illegularities in the stocks markets, a handful of people were obviously aware of the date, where it would happen and how it would happen.

And this law is not for the good of the people, the history of governments and particulary the history of US who sponsored terrorism, dictatorship, torture against a lot of civilians population prove it, I wouldn't for 1 billion $ trust them. Now, they have near absolute power, the door is wide open for full abuse. I'm convinced that in less than 6 months, you'll change you're views towards the good old government.


dragged from their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen, or heard from again.
This already happened in the US in the past years, take someone during the night, flew them to secret prisons or in their country of origin where they were tortured and persecuted.



[edit on 18-10-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
The reason I argue the point is to counter those who are convinced this is the begining of a facist police state where citizens will be dragged from their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen, or heard from again.


It's not that everyone is expecting Bush to do this; it's the fact that he's even given himself the option that is an outrage.

That an American president will take such great strides from the Patriot Act onward to find new and interesting sidesteps to the constitution, and then tie it all together with this bill (which incidentally pardons the entire administration in advance), is apalling.

Again, it is the retroactive immunity which just seems overwhelming.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I'm convinced that in less than 6 months, you'll change you're views towards the good old government.


[edit on 18-10-2006 by Vitchilo]


Vitchilo (and everyone else),

If we are all still here on ATS in 6 months and stormtroopers are running amuk, or in two years (when DG says Bush will not relinquish power) or whenever its proven/admitted that the US govt was complicent in 9/11, I'll freely admit my wrong thinking and give you all your props.

Until then, you'll just need to get used to my skepticism.

By the way - I am not a fan of the good old govt. It needs to be kept in check constantly, I just cant make the leap many here do.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky


You and I will never agree on this point. As I stated before, I think the Act is not up to US standards of moral and ethical behavior and it will be modified or struck down by the Supreme Court.




You mean like when some people were experimented on with '___' until they lost their minds? Or operation Northwoods? How about waco texas? Moral standards? Only what they think they can get away with. Who do you think killed the Kennedy's? I think they justify whatever they want.

Keep taking that blue pill and I am sure you will be fine.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

You mean like when some people were experimented on with '___' until they lost their minds? Or operation Northwoods? How about waco texas? Moral standards? Only what they think they can get away with. Who do you think killed the Kennedy's? I think they justify whatever they want.

Keep taking that blue pill and I am sure you will be fine.


Dude! Where is the angst coming from? We just don't agree. Why the sarcasm and bitterness?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Dude! Where is the angst coming from? We just don't agree. Why the sarcasm and bitterness?


Sorry if it comes across that way, I just love what America used to stand for. I saw 343 brothers and nearly 3,000 civliians die because a few warped minds are going for a power grab.

You see every so often we have battles between good and evil. More and more everyday I get the sneaking suspician I am living in the land where the evil is taking hold.

343 Firefighters dont die all at once, our first priority is scene safety. We cant save lives when we are dead. Then the first thing the rest of the living brothers do is try and save the fallen Firefighters. They knew those buildings would hold up. I could go on, but 9/11 never quite fit right with what I had been taught with my training and experience.

So after about 6 months of shock I started looking into it. Now I wish I didnt know what I know in my heart.

Sorry I sounded like I was treating you badly, I can tell you are a good American.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
darkbluesky: Do you know the american foreign policies history? Who they funded? Who they killed? Who they armed?

When you know this, you know that the government don't have the population's interest at heart, so you don't support anything that gives more power to the same government who built secret prisons in Europe, founded the Mujahdeen, armed Saddam, putted dictatorship in Iran, supported Kadafi, funded the contras and are now supporting the North Alliance in Afghanistan, a regime worst than the Talibans.

You don't support anything that gives them the power to spread dictatorship, unless you're a blind neo-con.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
LoneGunMan,

No problem.

Don't give up your principles. All governments needs dissenters and challengers.

out.

[edit on 10/18/2006 by darkbluesky]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join