RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Thadius -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 11:10:23 AM)

The military commissions act of 2006. It was in response to the SCOTUS ruling against Rumsfeld. Military Commissions Act of 2006 at LOC
Some of the act reads as follows:

quote:


Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants— Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
(d) Punishments— A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.




Bush did sign it into law.



mnottertail -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 11:16:27 AM)

(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.


Yeah, and who are we trying that fits into that catagory? (if you are on about the Gitmo5)...

note the use of the word alien (and its contextual meaning to this law).

AGs don't override the law like Mitchell did without at least a resignation (I think that Holders interpretation is correct).

I think that they could be tried either way, actually. We are not at polar opposites here, T.

Ron



Thadius -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 11:26:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.


Yeah, and who are we trying that fits into that catagory? (if you are on about the Gitmo5)...

note the use of the word alien (and its contextual meaning to this law).

AGs don't override the law like Mitchell did without at least a resignation (I think that Holders interpretation is correct).

I think that they could be tried either way, actually. We are not at polar opposites here, T.

Ron



The question then remains where did Holder get the authority to determine that KSM would not be tried via military tribunal as had already been announced?

I read alien in this context to mean non-citizen. Of course I could be mistaken.

I see this as a definite area where the executive is stepping on the toes of the legislative, and while the current majority might not mind it happening for political reasons, the precedent it is setting will most definitely come back to bite it (the legislative branch) hard on the ass.


Of course these things are way above my paygrade, so I will sit back and watch the folly that come of it; with a simple prayer that no harm comes to those that are putting their lives on the line. Know what I mean?



mnottertail -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 11:31:42 AM)

and I take it to mean the adjective:

residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there.

in other words, in country.

I think our constitution is strong enough to try and convict them, there is nothing more available in a singular governmental military tribunal, they would have to be based on the constitution as well. Now the international tribunals are somewhat of a differing matter (ala Nuremberg)....

Ron

(for ease of use, when I say constitution I mean that and relevent precedent, interpretations and rulings as well)



domiguy -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 11:32:49 AM)

Big surprise!!!...Firm omits part of the story!!!!

If you read the whole article, it goes on to say this....

"Although senior administration officials say that no policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a sure thing. At the same time, options for where to keep U.S. captives have dwindled."


And this...................


"Al-Qaeda and Taliban havens in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the border are considered part of the Afghanistan war theater. The Pakistani government tacitly permits CIA-operated unmanned aircraft to target terrorist sites and militants up to 50 miles inside the country. Under an executive order first signed by Bush and continued in force under Obama, the CIA does not have to seek higher administration authority before striking.

But while U.S. Special Forces work closely with the CIA on the Afghan side of the border, any ground operation in Pakistan would require specific White House approval, which so far has not been granted. In addition to the difficulty such a mission would pose amid a hostile population in rugged terrain, the Pakistani government has drawn a red line against allowing U.S. boots on the ground, and the risk of sparking an anti-American backlash is seen as too great."


-----

I find it tiring and rather counterproductive to be drawn into discussions by people that have no regard for relaying the whole truth but only that portion of the truth that will support their personal agenda.


Firm, you are a dishonest person.



Thadius -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 11:50:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and I take it to mean the adjective:

residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there.

in other words, in country.

I think our constitution is strong enough to try and convict them, there is nothing more available in a singular governmental military tribunal, they would have to be based on the constitution as well. Now the international tribunals are somewhat of a differing matter (ala Nuremberg)....

Ron

(for ease of use, when I say constitution I mean that and relevent precedent, interpretations and rulings as well)


I definitely agree with your premise. The big difference I see in the 2 is what is available under discovery.

Further, the comments by the President and the AG could come back to haunt them in the KSM trial. The comments about having no doubt about conviction etc..

You could be right as to the meaning of "alien" in the legislation. I was pointing out that Congress had already determined the jurisdiction of such, and no where did it involve the AG.

Your friend,
Thadius



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 12:00:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and I take it to mean the adjective:

residing under a government or in a country other than that of one's birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there.

in other words, in country.

I think our constitution is strong enough to try and convict them, there is nothing more available in a singular governmental military tribunal, they would have to be based on the constitution as well. Now the international tribunals are somewhat of a differing matter (ala Nuremberg)....

Ron

(for ease of use, when I say constitution I mean that and relevent precedent, interpretations and rulings as well)


I definitely agree with your premise. The big difference I see in the 2 is what is available under discovery.

Further, the comments by the President and the AG could come back to haunt them in the KSM trial. The comments about having no doubt about conviction etc..

You could be right as to the meaning of "alien" in the legislation. I was pointing out that Congress had already determined the jurisdiction of such, and no where did it involve the AG.

Your friend,
Thadius


No, you are correct. It is clearly defined in the Act. 948(a)1. "...not a citizen of the United States"




Aynne88 -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 4:31:26 PM)

Well hell's bell's. Where are the usual suspects now Domi? Wilbeurdaddy? Thadius? Firm? Anyone...? Bueller?

Oh fucking priceless DG. Thanks for the rest of the story and it pisses me off too to have threads started on less than an honest premise or the full information?  



thompsonx -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 4:48:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

Well hell's bell's. Where are the usual suspects now Domi? Wilbeurdaddy? Thadius? Firm? Anyone...? Bueller?

Oh fucking priceless DG. Thanks for the rest of the story and it pisses me off too to have threads started on less than an honest premise or the full information?  


Any one with 1600 posts should recognize firm's style...and not be surprised[;)]



Aynne88 -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 4:53:45 PM)

I know thompson, but I dared to keep hope alive.[;)]. Eternal optimist. ;)



Thadius -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 4:58:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

Well hell's bell's. Where are the usual suspects now Domi? Wilbeurdaddy? Thadius? Firm? Anyone...? Bueller?

Oh fucking priceless DG. Thanks for the rest of the story and it pisses me off too to have threads started on less than an honest premise or the full information?  

Well since you decided to include me in your list...

I would just like to thank you for your contribution to the discussion, we would have been lost without it.

First, I stated my position and stood by the words in this thread and the words I have typed in older threads related to this topic.

Second, I would have been more skeptical of the reason this thread was started if it didn't include the link which provided all of the information that Domi quoted. It (only quoting a portion of the story) happens around here all of the time, by folks on both sides of the political spectrum.

Finally, I would love to know what your position on the topic is. Does it matter that there is an increase in the kills vs capture ratio? Is the cause of this some new use of technology, or is it policy driven?



Aynne88 -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 5:30:15 PM)

Patronizing condescension.....mmmm. Tasty. I would be lost without that, being a girl and all.[8|]

No Thadius not everyone starts threads on half truths, and neglected information pertinent to the discussion. Since your brief absence, we have had a deluge of right wing nuts that are I daresay extreme even for here, cuck and won'tbemydaddy being two of the most infamous.
Firm started this thread and Domi pointing out some rather obviously overlooked information gets ignored by the Bushies. Typical.

Oh and I think most likely policy driven. Like you really wanted to know.



slvemike4u -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 5:35:26 PM)

Aynne I'm not sure we have had so much a deluge of right wing nuts.....more like one nut with a shit load of profiles.Willbeur's a buuuuusy man.



Thadius -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 5:36:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

Patronizing condescension.....mmmm. Tasty. I would be lost without that, being a girl and all.[8|]

No Thadius not everyone starts threads on half truths, and neglected information pertinent to the discussion. Since your brief absence, we have had a deluge of right wing nuts that are I daresay extreme even for here, cuck and won'tbemydaddy being two of the most infamous.
Firm started this thread and Domi pointing out some rather obviously overlooked information gets ignored by the Bushies. Typical.

Oh and I think most likely policy driven. Like you really wanted to know.

Still playing the victim, I see.

I have seen a lot of new nuts (both right wing and left wing) around here, that is for sure. Not that you are including me in the group of Bushies, but if you read back through my posts in this thread you will see that information was not overlooked.

Thanks for the answer to the question. For the record, at least you were right about me patronizing you.



TreasureKY -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 5:49:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Big surprise!!!...Firm omits part of the story!!!!

If you read the whole article, it goes on to say this....



Hmmm...

Firm's been pretty busy the past few days with work but I'll be sure to pass on to him that there are some here upset about not having information spoon fed to them. 

Honestly... I don't know what he was thinking... posting a link and actually expecting posters to read the entire article before commenting.  *sighs* 



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 6:08:55 PM)

So he had time to start a thread, but no time to type out a single sentence asking a question or stating a position?

Had time to come back an hour later and make a caustic comment about why nobody was responding to questions he never bothered asking, but still no time to type out a single sentence asking a question or making an assertion?

Sorry, but I've gotta call bullshit on that. It was just another one of his bait threads, and it didn't work this time because people have seen it too many time and they're tired of his trolling. Perhaps he'll have to find a new hobby.



Thadius -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 6:13:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

Good morning Firm. Usual suspect present and accounted for.

Absolute certainty that they are engaged in or planning a terrorist act against the US?  Kill the fuckers.

Keep human beings in Gitmo or simialr for months or years based on nada like little shrub did? No.

Now if only kittin comes and plays Firm will be happy. If that is Firm can ever be happy with Obama running the country . Sweet sweet justice after the 8 years we had to suffer through Firm, trust me on that.



My apologies Aynne, I missed this post in the thread.



domiguy -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 6:13:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Big surprise!!!...Firm omits part of the story!!!!

If you read the whole article, it goes on to say this....



Hmmm...

Firm's been pretty busy the past few days with work but I'll be sure to pass on to him that there are some here upset about not having information spoon fed to them. 

Honestly... I don't know what he was thinking... posting a link and actually expecting posters to read the entire article before commenting.  *sighs* 



I don't know what he was thinking only highlighting those aspects of the story that furthered his agenda? I know the answer. He wasn't.

It is not that I want to be spoon fed. That is your department. But it is totally a dishonest approach to try and skew the meaning of the story to support your beliefs.

There are plenty of valid reasons that are illustrated in the article which would have gave Firm the answers to the question that he posed in the OP....Obviously he needed to have those parts of the story, that he refused to acknowledge, spoon fed to him so he can fully understand the entire scope and depth as to all that was laid out in the article.

Firm was either blinded by his partisanship or was too dense to understand the reasons as to why the kill rate has increased. However, much of it is explained in the article.

Please pass on to Firm that he is dishonest in the manner that he posts and how he lays out information from his sources. He will use anything out of context to further his preconceived ideology.

I do agree with you. I don't know what he was thinking. It does, however, make him look like a pud.

Now, why is it that liberals are so condescending of conservatives?



AnimusRex -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 6:26:36 PM)

I think rather than get down into the weeds of the legalities, I posted that article about the Baptist missionaries (or child sex traffickers- thats not clear yet) in Haiti because it illustrates the central point.
Namely, that when you step outside the law, you lose the protection of it. This is a principle that all the parties that fought in WWII understood, that is why they elaborated on the Geneva Conventions and drafted rules of warfare.

When you go around saying "hells bells, we can kill or torture or imprison anyone we want, anywhere we want, for any reason we want, then don't be surprised when it comes back to bite us in the ass.

Someday Iran will decide that a person living in Kansas who writes a blog critical of their government is a "unlawful combatant" and whisks Billy Joe Bob off the streets of Wichita and holds him for 6 years of torture. And our argument against that would be....

Exactly what all of us "usual suspects" are saying right now.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Remember all those discussions we had about the "rights of terrorist" ...? (2/15/2010 7:25:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

So he had time to start a thread, but no time to type out a single sentence asking a question or stating a position?


I stated my position quite well:

I can remember several threads in which some of us made the argument that if we didn't have a system so that we could detain and interrogate terrorist, or even suspected terrorist, that the unfortunate result would be more dead terrorists on the battlefields.

Of course, this was laughed off, and the "oh so concerned about everyones' rights" group said that such a thing would either never happen, or wouldn't happen under someone other than thatgawddamnswaggeringsonuvbitchBushilter bastard ...

Well, guess what ...

So, as we "heartless conservative bastards" predicted ... we are preserving the human rights of people ... but we are killing them to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Had time to come back an hour later and make a caustic comment about why nobody was responding to questions he never bothered asking, but still no time to type out a single sentence asking a question or making an assertion?

Sorry, but I've gotta call bullshit on that. It was just another one of his bait threads, and it didn't work this time because people have seen it too many time and they're tired of his trolling. Perhaps he'll have to find a new hobby.


Call bullshit all you want, but the fact is that many conservative posters discussed this issue Ad nauseam during the Bush administration i.e. if you tie the hands of the operatives who are fighting the war across the world with full "US civil rights protections", and not through military tribunals or other systems which take into account of the unique circumstances of this conflict, then you'll end up with more dead terrorists than live prisoners.

In other words, by "protecting" the "civil rights" of some individuals, you are condemning them to death.

Some seem to be ok with that.  I think it's a morally reprehensible policy. 

I didn't particularly like the old policy, but I didn't like the (current) alternative, one which was fully foreseeable, and is being carried out the the elected official which "you guys" elected, partially to ensure that all the "captured prisoners", got "all" of their civil rights.

As far as  your claim of "bait thread" and "trolling", I guess the fact that it challenges some people's ideology makes it, and me a target.  Oh well, I guess that I either overestimated the perceptiveness of some of our more leftward members of the forums ... or there is some willful forgetfulness and blindness going around.

Firm



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875