S3930 - Detainee bill

[BigV]

This is entirely wrong.

How about the part where it's retroactive to actions taken by interrogators as early as 1997? It doesn't make us more secure. It doesn't fight terror. (whatEVER the fuck that means). It's a get out of court free card for the inquisitors.

fucking CRAVEN.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by BigV

How about the part where it's retroactive to actions taken by interrogators as early as 1997?

S3930 - The "CYA" Bill

[Flint]

Senate Wins Fight To Lower Allowable Amperage Levels On Detainees' Testicles

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.

Is an "unlawful alien enemy combatant" a person? If so, they get due process. You can't make up a random label that didn't exist in the 1700s and then say that the Constitution doesn't mention it.

The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights that Americans have. It's a list of rights that the US Government doesn't have.

In addition, about the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution says:

This Constitution ... and all Treaties made ... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You can't make up a random label that didn't exist in the 1700s and then say that the Constitution doesn't mention it.

If it was intended to be in the Consitution, his () noodley appendage would make it so. Ramen.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Is an "unlawful alien enemy combatant" a person? If so, they get due process. You can't make up a random label that didn't exist in the 1700s and then say that the Constitution doesn't mention it.

Funny, that's the argument the Dems use for gun control. But never mind that...

It's not a random label; it's the definition in the law. But I didn't say the citation (which you didn't supply) had to mention "unlawful alien enemy combatant", only that it had to apply to them.

Were you perhaps thinking of Amendment V?

Originally Posted by US Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger...

If you're going to present your interpretation of the Constitution, please cite the part you are interpreting.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Funny, that's the argument the Dems use for gun control. But never mind that...

It's not a random label; it's the definition in the law. But I didn't say the citation (which you didn't supply) had to mention "unlawful alien enemy combatant", only that it had to apply to them.

Were you perhaps thinking of Amendment V?

So does that mean that in "times of public danger" a US soldier can walk around shooting civilians with impunity? If so, why was Lt. Calley ever charged in the first place for his actions at the Mai Li massacre? The 5th Amendment does not give the military carte blanche to act like Nazi Storm Troopers. It just means that if a soldier kills or wounds an enemy soldier in time of war, he won't stand trial for murder.

By the way, the 6th Amendment begins "In all criminal prosecutions..." It doesn't say except for prosecutions of unlawful alien combatants. Even the Nazi high command was allowed to stand trial, and they weren't tortured, either.

The US is now, in effect, playing by two sets of rules - one for us and another for everyone else. Where's the integrity in THAT? Its like saying "Thou shall not kill" means you can't kill me, but its fine for me to kill you.

The Declaration of Independence states that ALL men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights. It doesn't say only US citizens are created equal. It says ALL MEN.

You endorse shredding the Bill of Rights to fragments, breaking a solemn treaty made with the WORLD, and the torture of human beings. If that's what America has come to, then I will no longer call myself an American.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

It's not a random label; it's the definition in the law.

What law?

Were you perhaps thinking of Amendment V?

If you're going to present your interpretation of the Constitution, please cite the part you are interpreting.

Since I used the term "due process", I was obviously referring to the part of the Fifth Amendment that is not modified by the "war or public danger" clause, which only applies to grand jury indictments for serving members of the US military.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What law?

The one you're complaining about...apparently the one you haven't read.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by marichiko

You endorse shredding the Bill of Rights to fragments, breaking a solemn treaty made with the WORLD, and the torture of human beings. If that's what America has come to, then I will no longer call myself an American.

That's up to you. But the Geneva Conventions were not "made with the world", they were made between nations; their applicability to terrorists who are neither acting on behalf of a signatory nor honoring the Conventions themselves is a complex issue.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The one you're complaining about...

Exactly. They made up a label and said that the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

And where is the term defined? How does one become an "alien unlawful enemy combatant"?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

How does one become an "alien unlawful enemy combatant"?

ALIEN- an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.

LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- individual who is
(A) a member of a State's regular military forces and engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) a member of a State's militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement engaged in hostilities which are under a command, wear a distinctive sign (uniform) that is recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and abide by the law of war (ie Geneva convention), or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities.

UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.

IOW if the US military attacks your home, if you are not an American citizen and you defend you home, then you are an alien unlawful enemy combatant. Therefore you can be shipped to Abu Ghriad, be tortured, and can appeal to no one - especially not the Supreme Court - for violations of Fundamental Human Rights.

Even if you are covered by the Geneva Convention - even if you are a citizen of a country that ratified the Geneva Convention - according to this law, you no longer have any human rights.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And where is the term defined?

I see you still haven't read the law.

[JayMcGee]

mmmmm......


waits for the knock on the door.....

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I see you still haven't read the law.

The law mentions it twice, neither of which is a definition.