posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 10:09 PM
1) I got your point just fine. You made it quite clear that if I don't agree with America or the presidents and "speak" my mind about it....i'm
2) Read this and tell me if this is the Ideas and the laws that the President of the United States has implemented into the fabric of our country and
its freedom paradigm, and furthermore ask yourself if I am still treasonous for not agreeing with it. After all this is the same country that I spoke
of before. I love my country and how dare you question my loyalty just because I was in the military.....if anything, that should attest to how much I
indeed, DO love my country,......but the country I grew up in is gone. No longer are we free, we are being arrested for everything under the sun and
some of it is for things we say. We are being beat in the street by cops for protesting and they make those who disagree look like bad guys in the
media and people like you who are afraid of truth and still have their head up their @ss thinking we are the same ol' America that we have always
been are blind to the fact that our COUNTRY has been high-jacked. So before I show the text, rest assured, I love our country and would die for
her,....but I don't have to like the leaders who were fortunate enough to be "silver-spoon" fed and to have our country to just be dropped in their
laps as if it were a toy from daddy to destroy and play with it as they please. And yet, you still sit here blind as if nothings wrong. You can't
cherry pick the patriot act either, the whole thing is a cancer to our country and you suppport it, maybe you're the traitor and just don't realize
it because you are so brainwashed and can't use your own brain,..the gov't gives you all of your answers.
(here it is)
The Act may apply to U.S. citizens
The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva
Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.
In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:
Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and
is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute,
and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3
One has described the Act as "the legalization of the José Padilla treatment" - referring to the American citizen who was declared an unlawful
enemy combatant and then imprisoned for three years before finally being charged with a lesser crime than was originally alleged. A legal brief
filed on Padilla's behalf alleges that during this time he was subjected to sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress
positions. He continues to be held by the United States.
According to Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Joanne Mariner, from FindLaw, this bill redefines unlawful
enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is
engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.
This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because
it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban
or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.
As such habeas corpus may be denied to US citizens. Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, responds to the comment that habeas
corpus has never been afforded to foreign combatants with the suggestion that, using the current sweeping definition of war on terror and unlawful