posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:07 PM
Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Xcathdra
why was there a need to suddenly pass a law expanding the use of the definition battle field and why does it encompass the earth?
the only reason that the law is written the way it is,
if they were any more direct with the legilsation it would be a violation of the constitution.
It does NOT expand, it DEFINES.
You guys need to pay attention. This legislation is based on other laws already passed as well as Supreme Court rulings. This legislation, dealing
with who can be detained, what conditions must be met etc is NOT new.
Hence the reference to the Military Commission Act of 2009. When Bush signed the 2006 act into law, it was used to detain and deny rights to Jose
Padilla, a US Citizen. The Supreme Court got the case and said absolutely NOT to that possibility. It also told the government the Supreme Court
CANNOT be removed from the legal process, either under Domestic law or under Military Law.
The following MCA's of 2008 and 2009 addressed the courts concerns and incorporated their rulings from other cases, like hamdi and hamden vs.
Rumsfeld, which specifically dealt with foreign nationals as well as foreign nationals who are citizens of a country that has separate bi lateral
agreements with outside of the UN, namely the UK.
Before you guys continue to complain, maybe you should go back and research ALL of the info, instead of just the parts you want. The tip off was the
specific reference to public law 107-40 and the MCA of 2009, letting you guys and everyone else who reads the legislation know there is a back story
and case law / actions that define this new language.
You guys accuse the government of acting inappropriately and without thinking some things through. May I respectfully suggest you extend that
observation to yourself as well?
This is NOT a new Law
This does NOT apply do US Citizens.