First thing this morning, the president signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which does away with habeas corpus, the right of suspected terrorists or anybody else to know why they have been imprisoned, provided the president does not think it should apply to you and declares you an enemy combatant.
Wonder how long before gun owners can be considered enemy combatants.Or anyone that types the wrong search phrase into a search engine, they gave themselves the right to all of those recordsallready.Or anyone that has a phone conversation in which they badmouth the president/govt, no warrants or evidence needed there either, just suspicion..Or anyone buying to much fertilizer, ammo,or gunpowder.They no longer need a warrant to sieze businuess records either.Only suspicion.Lovely how were trying to liberate a ****hole like Iraq while stripping away the rights of our own people.Republicans bitch about the gun grabbing liberals and then support the people giving them the very tools they need to remove your guns.Remember, half the people in the country would feel "safer" with your guns being melted down and turned into something else.[:'(]
It looks like RIF would be a good program to reinstate. This bill clearly applies to ALIENS - not US Cititzens. This little fact makes the above arguments moot.
It looks like RIF would be a good program to reinstate. This bill clearly applies to ALIENS - not US Cititzens. This little fact makes the above arguments moot.
Roger that.
Smokeman, you are living in a dream world. What color is the sky there?
If you want to create a list of consitution provisions that have been shat upon, you'll need to start before the passage of this. Our federal government hasn't the authority to impose half of what it imposes on the states. But we sit idly by while it does it.
I thought we'd already determined on the other thread on this same subject that this bill does not apply to American citizens? Yet here we are again, with Whitehorse and NCOutdoors having to explain it again.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
I thought we'd already determined on the other thread on this same subject that this bill does not apply to American citizens? Yet here we are again, with Whitehorse and NCOutdoors having to explain it again.
We havent determined anything of the sort.By your logic Timothy Mcviegh blowing up that federal building wouldnt have made him an enemy combatant or even a terrorist because hes a US citizen.
How about the Unibomber, was he participating in terrorist activity by blowing people up or was he simply a misunderstood citizen.Or the crazy Muslim that was a citizen of the US but chose to shoot a bunch of FBI agents and fled back to middle east?Enemy combatant or US citizen?Would the new laws include these people or not?If you answer yes then you admitt US citizens can be held under these laws at the discretion of the President, therefore they could be applied to any citizen.If you answer no then the laws useless for protecting us from domestic terrorism.
I thought we'd already determined on the other thread on this same subject that this bill does not apply to American citizens? Yet here we are again, with Whitehorse and NCOutdoors having to explain it again.
don't think we have determined that at all. jpcs read it and under his interpretation, it would only apply to aliens. i read it and believe it is ambiguous, and COULD apply to U.S. citizens.
the act contains three definitions of enemy combatant. only one of those three contain the term "alien."
don't think we have determined that at all. jpcs read it and under his interpretation, it would only apply to aliens. i read it and believe it is ambiguous, and COULD apply to U.S. citizens.
the act contains three definitions of enemy combatant. only one of those three contain the term "alien."
Boysda, could you please cite the sections containing the three definitions of enemy combatants? I've got the act sitting in front of me, and if you'll point to the section numbers for me, I'd like to review them, so that I can either (a) explain why you're wrong, or (b) admit that I'm wrong and change my view of the Act.
948a1 definitions, "theterm unlawful enemy combatant means... a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States..."
or
"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."
"˜National yawn as our rights evaporate"™
