Now That You Could be Labeled an Enemy Combatant

[GT40FIED]

0H N0z! mY R3@d1nG C0mpr3h3n$10n 1$ t3h suX0rz! R0b hAs sed s0!

Seriously though...you wanna talk reading comprehension flaws? You've completely ignored the fact that article 948a specifically states "unlawful enemy combatant"...NOT "alien unlawful enemy combatant". Provisions for that exist in article 948c. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. The term "unlawful enemy combatant" does not specify nationality, so how is it so hard to imagine that it's applicable to US citizens. You can keep pointing to 948c...but it's irrelevent when you look at 948a.

You've also COMPLETELY missed the point I was trying to make with my comment about approving of torture. You see...I know that the criteria I laid out will never be met by any government, so it's rhetorical at best. My intent was to point out the flaw in the entire idea of what we plan on doing. It's not so much that I'd be comfortable with the idea, but I'd be willing to weigh the options if the government had guidelines laid out and could be held accountable when they fuck up (and they will fuck up). How do I know how it's being carried out? Because the government has issued reports and people in the know have spilled the proverbial beans. At the time it was illegal, so instead of putting a stop to it like we should've done, we just went ahead and made it legal. I mean...what happens the next time an American is captured and tortured? Do we get to act all outraged? How can we condemn anyone for doing shit that we do ourselves? It's all a complete dunderfuck.

[GT40FIED]

Well...I'll be damned. This is taken from the actual bill itself...not a website giving it's perspective on the bill. Damned if I can find the word "alien" anywhere in there except where it EXCLUDES aliens. It also uses the non-descript phrase "any individual" or "an individual" several times. Oh...and notice how often someone's discretion comes up in there. I'm not sure we should be allowing the president to "determine" anything.

“(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense

“(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its cobelligerents in violation of the law of war;

“(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or

“(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.

“This definition includes any individual determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal before the effective date of this Act, to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but excludes any alien determined by the President or the Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis), or by any competent tribunal established under their authority, to be (i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war), or (ii) a protected person whose trial by these military commissions would be inconsistent with Articles 64-76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949.

The document in whole pdf format can be found at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facult...ommissions.pdf

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

0H N0z! mY R3@d1nG C0mpr3h3n$10n 1$ t3h suX0rz! R0b hAs sed s0!

Seriously though...you wanna talk reading comprehension flaws? You've completely ignored the fact that article 948a specifically states "unlawful enemy combatant"...NOT "alien unlawful enemy combatant". Provisions for that exist in article 948c. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. The term "unlawful enemy combatant" does not specify nationality, so how is it so hard to imagine that it's applicable to US citizens. You can keep pointing to 948c...but it's irrelevent when you look at 948a.

tourettes?

don't you get it? you're focusing on the list of definitions while completely ignoring what the ACT says who falls under it. Why is it so damn hard for you to understand that they defined terms seperately and then used them together in (get this) a sentence? I know it's not that hard to understand because when I first posted it you said something like "huh, that must be the old version, the new one does allow us citizens to fall under it" therefore by you reading that sentence you knew what it meant, now you're acting retarded citing idiotic reasoning as to why us citizens are under this.

Going back to my example, which I guess was to complicated for you.

A. Apple- a fruit that grows on trees in many parts of the world
B. Foreign- something that doesn't originate in this country

-What kind of apples do you use to make apple juice?

Foreign apples are used since they are cheaper.

AGAIN, are you going to say that even though they mentioned that they use foreign apples they could be using domestically grown apples because the definition for apple doesn't say apples must be foreign!? I feel like I'm teaching 1st grade.

be quiet about torture already, my point was that you began saying that "Torture is wrong, and that the US shouldn't do it" then come to find out it's ok with you if it meets your guidelines. THAT'S IT.

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

Well...I'll be damned. This is taken from the actual bill itself...not a website giving it's perspective on the bill. Damned if I can find the word "alien" anywhere in there except where it EXCLUDES aliens. It also uses the non-descript phrase "any individual" or "an individual" several times. Oh...and notice how often someone's discretion comes up in there. I'm not sure we should be allowing the president to "determine" anything.

aaaaaaahahahahah!!!! The term unlawful enemy combatants excludes LAWFUL alien combatants!!! oh no! All you did was point out who could be considered an "unlawful enemy combatant" which I'm pretty sure was done already. Again this definition is only part of what you need to know since those who are under this act are ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants. Stop picking words here and there and start reading.

Once again:
Ҥ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
“Alien unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in
section 948a of this title, shall be subject to trial by mili-
tary commissions as set forth in this chapter.

How can this be so hard to understand, it's right there in plain english. If the intent was to include US citizens WHY use the word "alien"?? It could've said just Unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in .... but NO they put the word "Alien" in for a reason.

[GT40FIED]

Sweet zombie Jesus...it's like screaming at a wall. Look...you can focus with laser-like precision on one point of this bill and say it proves a point. Or you can correctly see it for what it is by looking at the thing as a whole and for what it's intended to accomplish. As for focusing on a list of definitions...I'm pretty sure that list of definitions is what lays out the groundwork for the entire bill. So yeah...they might be important.

And I'll be quiet about torture when you get the fact that when I said what I said I was using the knowledge that those criteria would never be met. It's like saying "sure, I'd eat babies if I could fly to mars". Since I can't fly to mars and won't ever be able to, it's a moot point and I can't eat babies (which is a shame...they look tasty). Does it make sense now? The point is that America shouldn't use torture as a tool of intelligence procurement. If we do we've lost any claim to taking the high road and become no better than anyone else in the world that we label evil. As someone sort of famous once said, "America is great because it is good. When it stops being good, it will no longer be great".