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.
Canadian Laws
Since the September 1, 2001 attack in New York city, over 800 people in Canada have disappeared into Canada's detention system without being allowed to contact family or lawyers in violation of human rights. (2). All this before C36 is law. Justice Minister MacLellan’s proposed changes to Bill C 36 are miniscule and will not prevent police abuse or the destruction of the Rule of Law in Canada. The tiny change to the definition of terrorism fails to eliminate the offensive language of section 27 which catches lawful protestors. Her changes speak to the trickery in government intentions from day one. This is no more than a pretence of response to opposition in effort to fool the public. That we would tolerate human rights abuses even for 5 years is shocking and unsupportable.
Stephen Owen, MP said, “We need the authority of it (Bill C36) in order to implement twelve (12) international treaties that Canada has entered respecting terrorism.” (3). The twelve international treaties Owen talks of referred to in Bill C 36 already have sufficient attention in existing Canadian laws. We do not need the Draconian measures of Bill C 36 to meet Canada's commitments in those United Nations covenants.
The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
‘‘(27) SPYING.—Any person subject to this chapter who with
intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury
of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power,
collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means
or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying
such information to an enemy of the United States,
or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished
by death or such other punishment as a military commission
under this chapter may direct.
or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished
‘‘(B) CO-BELLIGERENT.—In this paragraph, the term ‘cobelligerent’,
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.
Co-belligerence is to be distinguished from a military alliance, but may be perceived as a euphemism. A government "finds itself" in a position as co-belligerent;
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Howard,you seem to be twisting the word "co-belligerant" to fit your "perceived" much ado about nothing.
This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Once again, I have to point out that the act is clearly limited
This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.
The definitions and scope of the act are clearly defined.
``(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.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
[Please, instead of repeating what's in the legislation you don't answer to my question...
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.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
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.
[edit on 18-10-2006 by Vitchilo]
Every citizen of a foreign state in America owes a double allegiance, one to it and one to the United States. He may be guilty of treason against one or both. If the demands of these two sovereigns upon his duty of allegiance come into conflict, those of the United States have the paramount authority in American law
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Democrats and Republicans are two peas in a pod. Voting one way or the other makes little difference at all. I don't see an end to these draconian laws until the people take their government back.
Why there are not riots in the streets over some of these laws is beyond my comprehension. It is an incorrigible fact that the government is playing the American citizenry like a bass fidel and we sit back and take it. It's ridiculous.
[edit on 18-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]