Political Crossfire Forums

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: I am active in politics and do my best to see that those people who best serve my interests get in office.
That people like you are *active* in politics probably says more about why things are so messed up in our country than anything else.. :lol:

First take the blinders off.. then you might be qualified to do something about politics... The Master once said something about removing the log in your own eye, before worrying about the speck in your neighbors eye.

:roll: Nice personal attack Psholtz. Is that all you have left? Wow. How sad for you.
It's anything but a personal attack, my friend..

We have a huge amount of ignorance clogging up our political process right now. People who are in *no way whatsoever* trained for leadership are strutting around, pretending they are kings of the earth. This is true on all levels of government, from the President on down to the mayor of Smallville, USA.

If our fathers could see us now, they would weep..

[Patriot911]

Medius wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Medius wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Dude,what I am saying is that this law,Military Commissions Act of 2006,gives the President despotic powers.

What YOU said was that Bush could declare anyone an enemy combatant with no proof and without due process. What has been repeatedly pointed out is that this is a baseless claim and you got suckered in by Alex Jones..... AGAIN. NOW you're claiming Bush is a despot because you've been shown to be wrong on everything else and some guy said he now has despotic powers. :roll: So why isn't he arresting all the Democrats in congress, installing his own Republicans and claiming himself dictator? It would seem the first thing a person with despotic powers would do is to make sure these powers can't be removed and that he remains in power. You keep making claims that the facts just don't back up. Embarassed for yourself yet? ;-)

Here, if the fact that it happened to be posted on an Alex Jones site, even though it was not in anyway affiliated with him bothers you so much, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlWbcvBN3cU&mode=related&search=

If the fact that Professor Turley is on Kieth Olbermann, even though he is there as an expert in constitutional law, bothers you so much, hit pause and wait till it loads to 2:32, skip there and hit play.

It is clear that Professor Turley believes that this law can be interpreted to include US Citizens.

If you want to attack Turley, do it directly. Alex Jones and Kieth Olbermann didn't have anything to do with his own personal assessment of the legal implications of this new law.

Where did I say it couldn't include US citizens? I clearly stated it could. What I am saying is that Bush can't arrest people just by declaring them unlawful combatants with nothing to back it up. Others here disagree and say he can.

So where do you stand? Do you agree with Psholtz and Mighty Oak that the President now has the power to order someone arrested just by claiming he or she is an unlawful combatant?

I don't disagree with Turley. I think we have to be careful whenever we grant the government power. However, I am NOT willing to go off half cocked like others here and start reading WAY more into it than is there. This is the whole reason we have checks and balances in our government. Congress writes the laws, the President signs them into law and the SCOTUS makes sure the laws follow the constitution.

Once a person is declared an enemy combatant they may be held indefinately and secretly and without Habaeus Corpus, they have no recourse. These individuals may then be tortured up to the point of death until a confession is given.

Now where exactly is the restriction here? Why would they need to have reasons when they can just torture them out of you, legally?

I do agree that this can be used on citizens. I'm not saying that it will be done immediately, but if we don't get rid of this law, it will be done eventually. There is certainly such a thing as being too paranoid but there is also such a thing as being too complacent. I fear what this law will do to future generations. Psholtz fears what it may do tomorrow. You trust that things will work themselves out through the system.

I'll take ending it today or tomorrow rather than waiting until people are falsely imprisoned and possibly executed. So yeah, I definately agree with Pschultz on this one. This is an immediate concern and is something that the people should never have allowed to happen.

The whole crux of the matter can be boiled down to your first seven words. Once a person is declared an enemy combatant. That is where I feel we need to focus our attention. Are there enemies of the state? Yes. Should there be incontrovertable proof of this "enemy" status before any action is taken? Yes. Can Bush just declare anyone he wants as an enemy combatant? No. Should there be oversight especially when US citizens are concerned? Absolutely!

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: I am active in politics and do my best to see that those people who best serve my interests get in office.
That people like you are *active* in politics probably says more about why things are so messed up in our country than anything else.. :lol:

First take the blinders off.. then you might be qualified to do something about politics... The Master once said something about removing the log in your own eye, before worrying about the speck in your neighbors eye.

:roll: Nice personal attack Psholtz. Is that all you have left? Wow. How sad for you.
It's anything but a personal attack, my friend..

We have a huge amount of ignorance clogging up our political process right now. People who are in *no way whatsoever* trained for leadership are strutting around, pretending they are kings of the earth. This is true on all levels of government, from the President on down to the mayor of Smallville, USA.

If our fathers could see us now, they would weep..

Nice double talk, but no amount of "niceing" up your attacks changes them from what they are. Personal attacks in the form of insults based on nothing.

Psholtz wrote: That people like you are *active* in politics probably says more about why things are so messed up in our country than anything else.. :lol:

People "like me"? And supposedly we are the primary reason for why the country is messed up? :roll: Yeah. We're suppose to believe your bullsh!t that this isn't a personal attack.

You can't even be honest with us when it is blatantly obvious what you are doing. Figures.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: Nice double talk, but no amount of "niceing" up your attacks changes them from what they are. Personal attacks in the form of insults based on nothing.

Psholtz wrote: That people like you are *active* in politics probably says more about why things are so messed up in our country than anything else.. :lol:

People "like me"? And supposedly we are the primary reason for why the country is messed up? :roll: Yeah. We're suppose to believe your bullsh!t that this isn't a personal attack.

You can't even be honest with us when it is blatantly obvious what you are doing. Figures.
It's not an "insult".. or a "personal attack".. it's simply a statement of fact that you have no business whatsoever trying to run or administer this nation.

And yes, people like you *are* much of what's wrong w/ this nation. People *always* get the government they deserve. You don't question your government. You simply desire for the government to coddle and nanny you from cradle to grave, soo... you get what you desire: Communism in America.



Congratulations.. good work.. :tu: :roll:

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Nice double talk, but no amount of "niceing" up your attacks changes them from what they are. Personal attacks in the form of insults based on nothing.

Psholtz wrote: That people like you are *active* in politics probably says more about why things are so messed up in our country than anything else.. :lol:

People "like me"? And supposedly we are the primary reason for why the country is messed up? :roll: Yeah. We're suppose to believe your bullsh!t that this isn't a personal attack.

You can't even be honest with us when it is blatantly obvious what you are doing. Figures.
It's not an "insult".. or a "personal attack".. it's simply a statement of fact that you have no business whatsoever trying to run or administer this nation.

And yes, people like you *are* much of what's wrong w/ this nation. People *always* get the government they deserve. You don't question your government. You simply desire for the government to coddle and nanny you from cradle to grave, soo... you get what you desire: Communism in America.



Congratulations.. good work.. :tu: :roll:

:lol: So you think I live in a communist state because I participate in the democratic process? What a loser. All you have left are empty insults and petty digs you *think* are so witty. To the witless, many things look witty. ;-) :moon:

[Medius]

Patriot911 wrote:
The whole crux of the matter can be boiled down to your first seven words. Once a person is declared an enemy combatant. That is where I feel we need to focus our attention. Are there enemies of the state? Yes. Should there be incontrovertable proof of this "enemy" status before any action is taken? Yes. Can Bush just declare anyone he wants as an enemy combatant? No. Should there be oversight especially when US citizens are concerned? Absolutely!

I agree that it boils down to this, so lets look at the definition of an enemy combatant presented in the act.

Quote: (1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term
unlawful enemy combatant' means--
(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.

Look at the second definition. Look carefully and tell me that this section does not give the president the authority to put together a group of any people, without the consideration of congress, that may have the sole authority by which to label anyone an enemy combatant.

There are listed no criteria for this determination. There are listed no criteria for what is considered competent. There is no check nor balance on this. Can you honestly tell me that something here allows for any dispute?

This determination is not intended to be an open court. The determination and subsequent detainment may be secret. In essence, there is a very real chance that a person could dissapear and only four people in the world would know. The president and his tribunal. In fact, maybe only one since there is no criteria, the President could simply put you in front of a Tribunal as a nameless entity and ask for the status change.

This law is good or evil only by the will of one man, the President. Should he be good, the law will be used for good. Should he be evil, the law will be used for evil.

The constitution was built for the exact purpose of guarding against this kind of power. Our founding fathers wrote about this exact danger time and time again. Do you think they were morons? Do you think they were conspiracy theorists?

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: So you think I live in a communist state because I participate in the democratic process?
Take it up w/ old Vlad Lenin:

Quote: Democracy is indispensable to socialism.

-- Vladimir Lenin


Quote: What a loser. All you have left are empty insults and petty digs you *think* are so witty. To the witless, many things look witty. ;-) :moon:
You've mooning me and you think that -->I'm<-- the one throwing the insults? :rotf:

Please.. I have neither the time nor the patience for such knavery.. :lol:

[Patriot911]

First off, let me state that until now you've been fairly civil in your debates and I have returned the favor. Statements such as your last paragraph are the kind of moronic insults I expect from the likes of Psholtz or Mighty Oak. If you wish to continue civil debates, I would suggest leaving such inflamatory statements by the wayside.

First, let me ask you something. Have you read the entire military commission act of 2006? I'm about half way done and have just been handed a very delicious looking dinner. Given your statements of there being no real oversight, I am guessing you haven't. Go read it, specifically about civilians in the tribunals. Very eye opening.

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h6054.pdf

[Medius]

Patriot911 wrote: First off, let me state that until now you've been fairly civil in your debates and I have returned the favor. Statements such as your last paragraph are the kind of moronic insults I expect from the likes of Psholtz or Mighty Oak. If you wish to continue civil debates, I would suggest leaving such inflamatory statements by the wayside.

First, let me ask you something. Have you read the entire military commission act of 2006? I'm about half way done and have just been handed a very delicious looking dinner. Given your statements of there being no real oversight, I am guessing you haven't. Go read it, specifically about civilians in the tribunals. Very eye opening.

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h6054.pdf

I wasn't attempting to be uncivil or inflamitory. In re-reading I can see that I made a poor word-choice to convey my intended tone. The last paragraph was simply intended as the questions asked, though rather than "moron" I should have asked if you thought their insight was incorrect.

I do appreciate you addressing your concerns directly, it ensures that we don't escalate on a percieved insult that was never intended. I'm generally not a heated person in a debate as I genuinely want to undestand the viewpoints of others.

So I hope you accept my apology and know that it wasn't my intention to escalate this argument.

On to the points. I have read the entire bill, I don't like to debate without the information. From what I have interpreted from the text, while there are a lot of apparent regulations they all come down to executive control. It may not seem that way at points, but if you look at other initiatives from the executive branch you can see that "Submitting reports to Congress" is generally considered optional and at the discretion of the President and Vice President. You can see this viewpoint on the signing statement attached to the Patriot Act.

The tribunal make-up has several regulations, but it is fairly open to any military personel that meet just a few requirements. Generally every point is under the direct control of the Executive Branch and seems dispersed only because it includes the military, which falls under the sole control of the Executive Branch (according to this President).

I'll go through and re-read for the point that you mentioned about civilians. I hadn't seen any mandated civilian participation previously. Just to make sure we are on the same page, the link you gave was for HR6054 and the law in question was for HR6166. I'm not sure if there's a difference between the two:

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h6166.pdf

[Todd D.]

Quote: Look at the second definition. Look carefully and tell me that this section does not give the president the authority to put together a group of any people, without the consideration of congress, that may have the sole authority by which to label anyone an enemy combatant.
I don't get that at all. Here's the text again:
Quote: (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 President or the SecDef does not have the authority to declare anyone an unlawful combatant. They have the authority to establish a "competent tribunal" that will THEN declare someone an unlawful combatant. Now, whether or not that will be a "Puppet tribunal" is a matter of opinion, but I think you have misread the text if you assume that the President can independently label anyone as such.

[Mighty Oak]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Look at the second definition. Look carefully and tell me that this section does not give the president the authority to put together a group of any people, without the consideration of congress, that may have the sole authority by which to label anyone an enemy combatant.
I don't get that at all. Here's the text again:
Quote: (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 President or the SecDef does not have the authority to declare anyone an unlawful combatant. They have the authority to establish a "competent tribunal" that will THEN declare someone an unlawful combatant. Now, whether or not that will be a "Puppet tribunal" is a matter of opinion, but I think you have misread the text if you assume that the President can independently label anyone as such. I'll give this a whirl.The President or the Secretary of Defence have the authority to detain anyone they DEEM as an enemy combatant.Now noone will know what happens after that.peroid.It's a secret.Get it.

[Todd D.]

Quote: I'll give this a whirl.The President or the Secretary of Defence have the authority to detain anyone they DEEM as an enemy combatant.Now noone will know what happens after that.peroid.It's a secret.Get it.
Again, no. Only the tribunal can issue the declaration of illegal combatant. Before that, there can be no detention, no arrest. You can't arrest someone that you aren't looking for in the first place.

[Mighty Oak]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I'll give this a whirl.The President or the Secretary of Defense have the authority to detain anyone they DEEM as an enemy combatant.Now noone will know what happens after that.peroid.It's a secret.Get it.
Again, no. Only the tribunal can issue the declaration of illegal combatant. Before that, there can be no detention, no arrest. You can't arrest someone that you aren't looking for in the first place. Who has the authority to issue an arrest under this act?Answer: the Prez. and the Sec.of Defense.Who looks at the arrest?Answer: a tribunal that we will have no idea who they are or even if they exist b/c it's a secret.Ask yourself this,what are they afraid of?Answer:Not being able to prove,in a court of law,that a suspect is guilty.

Our system is based on protecting the innocent first,not prosecuting the guilty.

[Todd D.]

Mighty Oak wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: I'll give this a whirl.The President or the Secretary of Defense have the authority to detain anyone they DEEM as an enemy combatant.Now noone will know what happens after that.peroid.It's a secret.Get it.
Again, no. Only the tribunal can issue the declaration of illegal combatant. Before that, there can be no detention, no arrest. You can't arrest someone that you aren't looking for in the first place. Who has the authority to issue an arrest under this act?Answer: the Prez. and the Sec.of Defense.Who looks at the arrest?Answer: a tribunal that we will have no idea who they are or even if they exist b/c it's a secret.Ask yourself this,what are they afraid of?Answer:Not being able to prove,in a court of law,that a suspect is guilty.

Our system is based on protecting the innocent first,not prosecuting the guilty.
You are reading this backwards. That's really all I can say. You are flat out wrong when you say that the President has the authority to issue the arrest. He does not. He has to wait until the tribunal declares them an unlawful combatant before that can happen. That's straight out of the text.

Again, you can make a good case that the tribunal could be a puppet one, effectively giving the President a rubber stamp, but it's unlikely that such a tribunal would be sanctioned.

[Mighty Oak]

Todd D. wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: I'll give this a whirl.The President or the Secretary of Defense have the authority to detain anyone they DEEM as an enemy combatant.Now noone will know what happens after that.peroid.It's a secret.Get it.
Again, no. Only the tribunal can issue the declaration of illegal combatant. Before that, there can be no detention, no arrest. You can't arrest someone that you aren't looking for in the first place. Who has the authority to issue an arrest under this act?Answer: the Prez. and the Sec.of Defense.Who looks at the arrest?Answer: a tribunal that we will have no idea who they are or even if they exist b/c it's a secret.Ask yourself this,what are they afraid of?Answer:Not being able to prove,in a court of law,that a suspect is guilty.

Our system is based on protecting the innocent first,not prosecuting the guilty.
You are reading this backwards. That's really all I can say. You are flat out wrong when you say that the President has the authority to issue the arrest. He does not. He has to wait until the tribunal declares them an unlawful combatant before that can happen. That's straight out of the text.

Again, you can make a good case that the tribunal could be a puppet one, effectively giving the President a rubber stamp, but it's unlikely that such a tribunal would be sanctioned. Doesn't it say the Prez. gets to declare what the tribunal is.For all we know it could consist of the Prez. and the Sec of Defense,the only 2 people who CAN declare you an enemy combatant.I guess thats the problem,other than it is totally against our American heritage,the secrecy.

[Snake]

psholtz wrote:
Hey, what's wrong with communism? Besides the fact that nobody owns anything, or get paid based on what they know, and what they do, which means a fry cook gets paid the same as a surgeon, and it's left wide open for totalitarian rule?

[psholtz]

Kamel wrote: psholtz wrote:
Hey, what's wrong with communism? Besides the fact that nobody owns anything, or get paid based on what they know, and what they do, which means a fry cook gets paid the same as a surgeon, and it's left wide open for totalitarian rule?
Exactly... :-D

[Todd D.]

Quote: Doesn't it say the Prez. gets to declare what the tribunal is.
No. It says that he can approve of the Tribunal.

Quote: For all we know it could consist of the Prez. and the Sec of Defense,the only 2 people who CAN declare you an enemy combatant.
You keep repeating this over and over again, but it's simply not true. Let me say it one more time: according to the text of the law in question, the President can not simply declare anyone he wants an "enemy combattant". This law simply does not give him that power. It allows him the power to form a tribunal (absent of himself, as common law dictates such would be a conflict of interest) and THAT TRIBUNAL can then declare someone an enemy combattant.

If you repeat in this thread "The president or SecDef are the only two that can declare you an enemy combattant", then it will become obvious that you simply aren't listening.

Quote: I guess thats the problem,other than it is totally against our American heritage,the secrecy.
A bill available on a government website and published in just about every major newspaper in the country is "secret"?

[Mighty Oak]

[quote="Todd D]
A bill available on a government website and published in just about every major newspaper in the country is "secret"?[/quote]Well you just lost me there.

[Todd D.]

How did I lose you? This comes directly from an official government website and has been reprinted, at least in part, in several major US newspapers. The information is freely available to anyone with the desire to seek it out. How on earth is this "secret"?