Ok...well...the problem is that it does apply to citizens. And it is talking about taking their rights away. It suspends your right to counsel, your right to a speedy trial, and through use of torture, I imagine it also eliminates your right against self incrimination. Oh...and that whole thing about inhumane treatment. Look...I don't think anyone's saying that people who mean us serious harm should be allowed to hang out on street corners and walk around as they please. Shit...I'm all for tossing them into the depeest dirtiest part of the most violent jail you can find. I'm just not sure letting our own government hook a car battery up to some guy's nuts is the best of all options.

what? where did that come from? stick to facts, dont throw out bullshit cause you think its right, making stuff up makes everything else less credable. isnt that why you never believe anything you didnt conspire up?

also where in this whole thing does it say that it removes US citizens rights? as much as you want to think it implys that i dont see it. i understand where you are coming from, but we are already have our rights as a citizen as much as you want to disbelieve that. i see it not granting enemy conbatants the same rights, but no where do i see it saying it takes away citizens rights since it dosnt really apply to citizens directly. if you are an american citizen and in violation here, im pretty sure once again, by way of esionage/treason you loose your citizenship and go through the process via the old way we've had on the books for years

What do you mean "where did that come from?"? That's the basic point of the bill...to give the president the power to interpret the Geneva convention as he sees fit.

Chirs...did you read the link I posted to the bill itself? It says, in part:

Section 948a(1) defines an unlawful enemy combatant as


"(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces; or


(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

The term "a person" is all inclusive. It does not define nationality or citizenship. I'm sure Rob will start bitching about about article 948c where it defines what an alien combatant is, but that's a seperate subsection. So my question to you would be how does this section NOT deal with citizens? Yes, we as citizens do have some rights, but they're being slowly erroded. This bill just takes more of them. And while the acts specified in this bill might fall under treason or espionage, either of those allegations is a bitch to prove under old statutes. This gives the government a huge length of rope...and they'll likely hang us all with it. While it might not be a bad idea to make it easier to prosecute acts like this, stripping people of basic rights afforded at trial isn't the way to do it and neither is the idea of "coersion" that this bill would make legal.

well, you shouldnt associate with these people. we have much worse laws that our citizens have to follow that take away more basic rights when they arnt even hurting anyone, so this one dosnt really bother me. maybe it includes citizens, but they have to be labeled a enemy combatant through a process first in order to be subject to this,and if they are, then i dont really care how trhey deal with em. we put ted whatever his name was down for bombing the ok. building over a decade ago, he was a citizen/terrorist and he got the death penalty. would you have minded if they had to stomp on his balls once or twice because he wouldnt tell who was involved? what goes on behind closed doors can and will stay behind em, so we dont even know what really is going on, we can only speculate which will probobly be wrong. this just outlines how we deal with people in our contry with no rights.....

You know...if someone is truely an enemy combatant, then yes...they deserve to be dealt with harshly. I'm not saying stomp on their junk...but there's a lot of grey area between simple imprisonment and junk-stompage.

As far as Tim McVeigh stands...as I recall there were no other arrests made aside from Terry Nichols in that case (the "Ted" you're thinking of was Theodore Kaczinsky...the uni-bomber). Even if we'd have tortured him, what's the point? There are likely a few million people in the US whose hatred of the government is almost at the tipping point for whatever reason. Ironically, most of these people make up the current administration's base so they're not going to get locked up unless they fuck up really, really bad.

My problem isn't necessarily with the idea of the bill...it's the methodology of the bill. The people it gives decision making power to have no right to be making decisions that effect anyone's lives. No one wants to give people who wish us harm a free pass. Then again, I don't want some dipshit who got his job because his daddy knew someone else's daddy deciding who gets the rack and who doesn't. Chris, of all people on this board you should understand how fundamentally flawed the system is and that sooner or later this bill will be used for unjust purposes. Regardless of whether you agree with it's words directly you have to know that eventually it will be used for the wrong purpose. That's how the US rolls. We pass vague laws and then turn them into abominations for political gains.

Steve, always with the conspiracy theories and the victim mentality. Are you ever going to grow up? Or are you going to hide in your make believe crazy land forever?

Also, you're making some arguments that are purely based on half-assed assumptions, you obviously did not read through what this act entails. So shut up until you actually read it. Or just read one definition out of many, over and over again ignoring anything else which might hurt your piss poor argument.

And regarding your reply to my last statement:
We can't agree because you're blind to the obvious. Being accused of being an enemy combatant is only half the criteria to be tried by a military commission. You pretend not to understand that, which is funny because like I said it made sense to you when I first posted the info. But since you are so easily brainwashed by anything anti-gov't you came up with an argument anyway.

Also, why are you telling me torture does happen? When did I say it doesn't? You want shit in war and prevention of terrorism guaranteed? Are you stupid? Nothing can be guaranteed, just like you can't be guaranteed of just about anything in life, so are you going to just sit on your ass in defeat? (Well if your a typical liberal supporter you probably would) Or are you going to do what you can with what you have?

Alert the militias our gov't is trying to protect us from terrorism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christ, it's like trying to talk sense into a crying child. How can you say I'm only reading one definition over and over when ALL you've said is that simply because there's a clause for foreigners that it ONLY applies to them. I'm saying it applies to both, but since you've so shrewdly deduced with your non-reading of the thing I'll take your word for it.

"Oh no, he's a brainwashed anti-government conspiracy theorist! LOLZ!". Honestly, if it makes you feel better to think of me as some nutjob just so you don't have to formulate a decent rebutle, go ahead. I know I'm not and...well...I really don't care what you think of me. There's no conspiracy here...we're being fucked right out in the open. Hell...they even put it in a nice pretty bill for everyone to read. Nobody will, of course, because no one cares where this country is headed...but that's neither here nor there. If you're too ignorant or stupid to see that, it's not my problem.

It should be fun to watch the public reaction to the next American who's captured and tortured. We'll predictably act horrified and condemn whoever did it but we'll forget that there's some guy named Ahmed locked up in some cell with a pole shoved up his ass. Then people will likely start shouting "see! see! they're evil!!11!1one!". You know...like we don't do it too and even went so far as to put it into law.

I could go on, but I tire of this. I've got more important things to do...like play with my balls.

muahahahahahahah:werd:

More kiddie replies lacking substance, how surprising.

I know...it's frustrating for me, too. I have to keep my replies on the level of your reading comprehension. That in itself is a full time job.

To be quite honest, if you're getting what you feel is a childish response, it's probably because you made a profoundly stupid comment.

lol, and the kiddie remarks keep coming.

out of curiosity how have I not make a decent rebuttal? You said unlawful enemy combatants can be anyone, I said yes they can, but alien unlawful enemy combatants can only be those who are aliens (as you might've learned in grade school the word alien describes what kind of unlawful enemy combatants we are talking about...reading comprehension anyone?). Since then you still haven't said much of anything other than the normal meaningless BS that you tend to spew at any chance you get.

huh, I was just reading about a U.S. citizen who is wanted for supporting the bin laden bunch, he's wanted for TREASON not for being an unlawful enemy combatant. Imagine that, he'll be tried in a federal court and the gov't will have to follow rules laid out in the constitution probably because (now this is just a guess) he's a US citizen. But according to you steve he would fall under this military commissions act would he not?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/11/gadahn/

Ok...wait...I think we got twisted up somewhere. I'm not saying the phrase alien unlawful combatant doesn't apply aliens. That would just be dumb. My whole point was that the bill in it's entirety applies to everyone, not just aliens. I don't disagree that the phrase alien unlawful combatant applies solely to aliens. I mean...it's right there in the name.

I saw something about that story...but I don't watch much network or even cable news because...well...they're all biased assholes. Is he the one from California (I think) who appeared in some Al Qaeda videos? I really don't know enough about the whole thing to know if it applies under this standard or not. I do find it odd that he'd be the first person tried for treason since WWII and that the timing of his arrest just happen to coincide with this bill's introduction. Don't worry...I'm not going all conspiracy on you, it just seems like an ENORMOUSLY unlikely coincidence. Even if his involvement does make him a candidate for prosecution under this bill, the bill is open to interpretation and we can always fall back on old laws. Besides...it looks a lot better to trot some dumb son of a bitch out in front of cameras. If we'd charged him under this bill he'd have just disappeared. His family would probably be putting up missing posters as we speak.

thankyou thats what i was looking for, something along those lines. treason for citizens when they commit treason, who would have thought

but this is the right case for this charge. its like getting a speeding ticket on your bicycle or riding on the wrong side of the road, sure your breaking the law and technically they could try you as a car, but they dont since we have bike laws which better cover the situation.

You agree that the term applies only to aliens yet you don't see how since that term describes who is subject to military commissions then only aliens would be subject to them???

Coincidence? Who cares? The military commissions act has nothing to do with him being charged of treason by the gov't in federal courts. Now you're saying it's not in the best interest of the gov't to convict someone using this act (a prime candidate as far as I can tell-other than he's a us citizen), then please do tell when you think it would be the best time. I know you have some V for vendetta type thing cooked up but lets stick to reality here.

yup, it's crazy I know. :eek:

with all the governent crap steve posted so far i think he should be moved to syberia or antartica if that were true

Trust me man...there's a few million people they'd have to go through who are worse than me before I'd have to start worrying.

racist!

i didn't rev my engine at him :D