USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah that's pretty naive. As I just explained they can simply accuse you and even though it is illegal you can't defend yourself because you lost the right to get a fair defense simply because of the accusation (not conviction)

So you think that when a US convoy gets attacked and they raid a house where there is incoming fire from. And they see a guy in the house wearing a mask and holding a gun. They can't say on the spot that that guy is an enemy combatant?

Lets go in more detail: Your base is under an RPG attack. quickly, get to your position and notice a guy 150m out with an RPG on his shoulder. do you think it will hold up in court that that guy just "happened" to be in the area? NO! that would be wasting time!.

Next Scenario: Your walking down the street and hear gunfire two blocks away. you dash to the corner to see what's going on and see Allied troops shooting at your position. Confused, a man runs by you in the opposite direction with web gear on. You warn the man to halt but he fails to obey the order. Thinking fast you trip the runner and hold him down. After your allies notice your presence they stop firing and approach you about the situation. You are then told that they saw that man plant a bomb and run. Should he be arrested for as an enemy combatant?

Your not getting the point: The person has to be captured during combat. Your thinking to hard, they can't walk up to someone and yell "He fired at me! your under arrest!" Your CO and the CO above him will ask: "where's your proof?" Then you suddenly realize what it is like to be an E-1 again. Because they are NOT going to come under fire from the Red Cross because of you.

You didn't get what I wrote. I didn't talk about Iraq. I talked about how this law (despite being equally illegal when applied to foreigners) can easily backfire on anyone in the US. This law offers a way to suspend most of the legal protection the US constitution offers of anyone being accused of being an "alien unlwaful combatant". No matter if he actually is one or not. Because once they say you are you cannot go and complain about them doing illegal things with you. You are welcome to read what I said again.

Besides I don't think anybody on this planet can say what an "alien unlawful combatant" actually is and how it differs from a "lawful combatant" that atatcks a country preemptively based on false evidence.

Here is what Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute, a libertarian "think tank", wrote about the applicability of the MCA to U.S. citizens.....

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006....itizens

Quote[/b] ] Does the Military Commission Act Apply to U.S. Citizens?

Legal scholars are debating whether the Military Commission Act [MCA], passed by Congress on September 29 and soon to be signed by President Bush, applies to U.S. citizens. The answer is more complicated than one would think.

First: Under Sec. 948a(1) an unlawful enemy combatant is “(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents …; or (ii) a person who…has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal….†Use of the word “person†suggests that citizens may be detained as unlawful combatants.

But second: Sec. 7(a) denies habeas rights only to aliens. Thus, a citizen who is detained as an unlawful combatant would appear to have habeas rights to challenge his detention.

Moreover, third: Sec. 948b states that “[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants.†In other words, only non-citizens may be tried by a military commission.

My conclusion: A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.

According to the MCA, the definition of a "lawful enemy combatant" is.....

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin....umm2=m&

Quote[/b] ]

Defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as a person who is a member of: (1) the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States; (2) a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or (3) a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this part of the MCA....

Quote[/b] ]

Prohibits any person in the custody or control of the United States, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Its a fact, Dictatorships make less money than Democracies. Communism is well known because of its social welfare programs.

Actually China's social security programs are just plain crap, their social spending is insanely low in the countryside especially. Even their income inequality is about as bad as the US's.

Quote[/b] ]

You do realize that a trade embargo on China will result in China going bankrupt? Besides, most of the resources used for the trade are in developed areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan, or unoccasionally from Tibet. All these areas could easily prosper on their own. But china is just reaping all the benefits.

Guess you missed the last ten years when bulk of our industry was moven to mainland china to exploit their cheap semi-slave labour.

Quote[/b] ]

For the nation to pay for all of this it has to raise taxes. And with China having a lot of people, it becomes a double edged sword. Yes they do get more tax money, but they still have to pay for them as well. You see taxes in China usually run at nearly half. If it came down to it, those areas listed above will secede. This will destabilize the country's economy indefinitely.

A goverment that hardly takes kindly to even the nicest protest would react in the most brutal manner to any such attempt.

Quote[/b] ]

Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this part of the MCA....

Quote[/b] ]

Prohibits any person in the custody or control of the United States, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Have'nt certain people been trying skate around that definition for quite a long time now?

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I really have a hard time seeing how one soldier can be an 'unlawful combatant' in a war where he is defending himself and his country from enemy military forces in his own country - when the attackers are lawful combatants?

I also have a hard time seeing how you THEN react hard when the iraqi/afghan troops imprison your soldiers and use the same 'unlawful' preocedure as yourself.

[Stendac 0]

Quote[/b] ]And you may wish to do some research on how the economy of a communist country works before waffling about tax and China running out of money.

China does not even have a "traditional" communist economy, huge changes have taken place with the Chinese economy- it's industries are being brought under private control. As a result the Communist Party are finding it extremely difficult run the country with a capitalist economy and a Communist government. The two are incompatible.

The US is the world's superpower and does have a "monopoly" over the world to an extent. However this grip on the world is fading and China is slowly taking over and in roughly 20 years should be the worlds new superpower.

Quote[/b] ]Its a fact, Dictatorships make less money than Democracies.

With the privitisation of the Chinese economy it is inevitable that the Communist system will fall in China and be replaced by a Democracy.

Woah, a little too optimistic there.  China is taking steps towards privatization (sort of), but this can't be confused with real capitalism.

"Most of the companies within this market belong to listed company in which the Chinese government maintains controlling interest. With regards to the listed companies, the government has viewed the stock markets has means of raising capital, but there is no current interest to privatization or selling off the state controlling interest in the SOE's.  Until 2005, two-thirds of the shares in listed companies were non- tradable on the exchange, creating a problem in which the tradable shares were valued higher than their proportion in the company. In 2005, as part of the Chinese stock issue reform, the non-tradable shares were made tradable and the holders of tradable shares were compensated by having extra equity in the company."

-From Wikipedia's article on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange

The government can't stand to let go of too much of its control.  They still build magnificent hotels that no one can afford to stay in so they just sit there empty and look pretty.  They'd like to have the appearance of a capitalist market, but so many weird things happen in the Chinese economy because the government still wants to pull all the strings instead of letting market forces work naturally.

Yup, China probably will come out as a superpower in a couple of decades, but boy do they have some serious problems that they'll have to deal with.  They'll have their wicked inflation rates and their millions of people that would like to retire before they die.

As for the fall of the "Communist" system in China?  Don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

EiZei, am I mistaken anywhere? By the way, do you have a bone to pick with the Chinese government?

[EiZei 0]

EiZei, am I mistaken anywhere?  By the way, do you have a bone to pick with the Chinese government?

I have a bone to pick with every corrupt ogliarchy of the world.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]I really have a hard time seeing how one soldier can be an 'unlawful combatant' in a war where he is defending himself and his country from enemy military forces in his own country...iraqi/afghan troops imprison your soldiers

Calling the anti-Coalition forces "troops" is at best deception. The insurgents/foreign fighters are not uniformed and are not serving any governmental body. They're not under any formal command structure and many live amongst the civilian population. The only "Iraqi troops" that the US encounters are soldiers serving in the Iraqi armed forces. Whether the men fighting the Coalition are justified in their actions is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether they are lawful combatants.

From Wikipedia, here's the definition of a lawful combatant:

Quote[/b] ] 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict

2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

* that of carrying arms openly;

* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The parts I've placed in boldface are the parts that are usually, if not always violated by insurgents and foreign fighters. American soldiers have also violated these at times, but that's why we have military courts. Not to mention, when American soldiers' misconduct is reported, we get a scandal, not a popular series of poorly filmed videos of Americans killing Iraqis while a preacher chants "Praise Jesus! Praise Jesus!"

Quote[/b] ]use the same 'unlawful' preocedure as yourself.

Either we aren't carrying out the same actions, or I've missed the Monday Night Football Pre-Game Beheadings.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]I really have a hard time seeing how one soldier can be an 'unlawful combatant' in a war where he is defending himself and his country from enemy military forces in his own country...iraqi/afghan troops imprison your soldiers

Calling the anti-Coalition forces "troops" is at best deception. The insurgents/foreign fighters are not uniformed and are not serving any governmental body. They're not under any formal command structure and many live amongst the civilian population. The only "Iraqi troops" that the US encounters are soldiers serving in the Iraqi armed forces. Whether the men fighting the Coalition are justified in their actions is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether they are lawful combatants.

From Wikipedia, here's the definition of a lawful combatant:

Quote[/b] ]   1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict

  2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces

         * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

         * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

         * that of carrying arms openly;

         * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

  3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

  4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The parts I've placed in boldface are the parts that are usually, if not always violated by insurgents and foreign fighters. American soldiers have also violated these at times, but that's why we have military courts. Not to mention, when American soldiers' misconduct is reported, we get a scandal, not a popular series of poorly filmed videos of Americans killing Iraqis while a preacher chants "Praise Jesus! Praise Jesus!"

Quote[/b] ]use the same 'unlawful' preocedure as yourself.

Either we aren't carrying out the same actions, or I've missed the Monday Night Football Pre-Game Beheadings.

So if USA decides to invade Norway I am an unlawful combatant if I pick up a gun and fight the US troops on my own when they've occupied the area I live in (and I don't carry the gun openly)? Now that's just total bullshit...

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]So if USA decides to invade Norway I am an unlawful combatant if I pick up a gun and fight the US troops on my own when they've occupied the area I live in (and I don't carry the gun openly)? Now that's just total bullshit...

Well, if you're not carrying your weapon openly, then yes. And it really doesn't matter if you think it's bullshit, because you'll be judged by those standards (Unless someone was to amend/modify the original Geneva Conventions). I agree, the idea seems silly in practice, but the peculiarities of the document don't render it invalid.

[Balschoiw 0]

That´s why people got kidnapped on the streets and taken to Gitmo, right ?

Because reality doesn´t fit the document or "legitimation" produced by the Bush-bunch, like it doesn´t with "war on terror", "preemptive strike" or official statements like:

Quote[/b] ]Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

Don´t you get it ?

They are TODAY trying to justify and legitimize on paper the wrongdoingd they have done in the run-up of Iraq war and they only try to save their own asses by doing so.

You, the people of the USA and everyone who has to die in this made-up case of some greedy bastards and a dumbnut who puppets through the white house in his last throws.

It´s no shame to see what your presidnet has made of your country. By claiming to "protect" you he sent you off to die.

It´s no shame to be american and actually get this guy out of office asap. He´s harm to the US and he´s harm to the world.

[Stendac 0]

Don´t you get it ?

They are TODAY trying to justify and legitimize on paper the wrongdoingd they have done in the run-up of Iraq war and they only try to save their own asses by doing so.

You, the people of the USA and everyone who has to die in this made-up case of some greedy bastards and a dumbnut who puppets through the white house in his last throws.

It´s no shame to see what your presidnet has made of your country. By claiming to "protect" you he sent you off to die.

It´s no shame to be american and actually get this guy out of office asap. He´s harm to the US and he´s harm to the world.

I think President Bush would have done much better if they admitted that they fucked up the post-invasion planning. I would have respected his administration much more if they just came out and said, "We're sorry. We've let the Iraqi people down and we let the American people down. Now it's time for us to put our heads together and find a way to fix this mess."

Whenever they gloss over the situation in Iraq it feels like they're abandoning all of us in reality.

It's not just Iraq either. The finger pointing after the Foley Scandal was embarrassing too. FOX News and Ann Coulter (although most don't take her seriously) tried to shift focus over to the Democrats.

Everybody's just sick of it.

Mistakes are inevitable, but could they at least take responsibility when things go wrong?

[Sophion-Black 0]

Hey, Bush will be out in two years. so quit whining, its only temporary.

about all these claims about GITMO holding "illegal" detainees: If you can put facts behind your posts we may believe you. But as far as presenting biased yellow journalist wanting bush out and writing about it: forget it. You won't convince anybody about make-believe faerie tales.

Ah yes, China. Those commies will not be able to fund a war with the United States or any selected allies of the US. If you look in history why superpowers came of way, you would see they had to do it using blood. The US did it by "containing" Vietnam, Korea, Poland and other nations which showed potential of falling. granted some nations did fall like Laos and Vietnam (I thin Cambodia too, but don't cite me on it right now... I'm half drunk ). If every contestant area would secede; the US, India, and other allies would help them out (India because of Tibet and Taiwan would really help them out).

India would be a nation the US would look at in curiosity. We would be wary of them because Pakistan being our "Ally". but we would let them come to the world stage as a super power.

The power of Vodka on an empty stomach... wow  

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]about all these claims about GITMO holding "illegal" detainees: If you can put facts behind your posts we may believe you.

Quote[/b] ]I'm half drunk

No, you´re completely drunk.

You may want to check google my friend.

The lack of

knowledge you present us here is embarrasing.

[walker 0]

Hi all

NeoConMen believe in "never give a sucker an even break"

So Karl Rove is out rallying/gouging his Christian evangelicals again.

The NeoConMen consider evangelicals as being: "boorish," "ridiculous,"  "goofy," "nuts,"  according to David Kuo, a conservative Christian, former assistant to President Bush and Deputy Director of Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program, in his book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction.

http://www.amazon.com/Temptin....3287126

The book tells the inside story of the NeoConMen's entry-est policy on gaining control of the evangelical christian churches.

The Modus Operandi (MO) is the same as the bolshevik NeoConMen used to take over control of the US Republican party. A Straussian Text is used to con the evangelical Christian's into giving control of their church to the NeoConMen. In this case the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives gives money to those it wants to take over the evangelicals.

The key NeoConMen concept here is the Straussian text, which is a piece of writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. In other words A Con.

In this case the con revolves around shouting big about a christian policy while never delivering it and saying the sky will fall if you don't vote for us NeoConMen! It is variation on the famous:

Quote[/b] ]Pig-in-a-poke originated in the late Middle Ages, when meat was scarce, but apparently rats and cats were not. The con entails a sale of a "suckling pig", in a "poke" (bag). The bag ostensibly contains a live healthy little pig, but actually contains a cat (not particularly prized as a source of meat, and at any rate, quite unlikely to grow to be a large hog). If one "buys a pig in a poke" without looking in the bag (a common colloquial expression in the English language, meaning "to be a sucker"), the person has bought something of lesser value than was assumed, and has learned firsthand the lesson caveat emptor. It is also said to be where the phrase, 'the cat's out of the bag', comes from, although there may be other explanations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

The variation here is essentially the same type of fraud as the "Lock in sale" where the con-men say quick we selling off the last of our stock at knockdown prices, they gather a crowd of people till the shop is full.

Then they lock the doors (the lock in) onstensibly because the the shop is full. Now they have a captive audience and no oversight by police or the like.

Pigs in Pokes

Now they start to sell the last of their stock in a form of closed bags by bidding on an "apparently" first come first served basis but those who get the bags of booty are members of the con team. They open their bags and show these wonderful shiny things so everyone on can see the bags contain them, they also drop their bags on the floor creating a mess. Importantly the sale room manager grumbles about the mess.

The con team, the rush, the excitement and the fear

Now they get on to the next lots but the sale has to end so everything becomes a rush creating excitement; the marks adrenaline is boosted. This causes the mind to react rather than to think.

They ask every one who wants a bag to put up their hands. There is a lot of rushing around by the rest of the con team to create more excitement but no bags are past out to the suckers till every one has agreed to pay for a bag.

They keep mentioning the sale is about the to close creating fear and more adrenaline less thought, less room for questions in the marks mind.

Members of the con team move to cluster round those who are reluctant to put up their hands. More con team members open their wonderful bags of nice shiny camcorders and the like. Peer pressure. More mess is created by the bags more grumbles from the sale room manager.

The close

A last member of the con team gets given a bag and drops the bag on the floor opening it up thus creating more mess. This is an excuse for the sale room manager to say hey don't drop your rubbish on the floor wait till you get home and don't mess up the planet. The con team member is suitably chastised and a pressident is set "no more opening the bags keep the bags closed" more fear.

One last rush to mop up any that have put up their hands.

The cash is collected and all the bags are then quickly passed out and the marks are hustled out before they can open the bags. The door to the sale room is locked as it has now closed, the lights are turned off and the shutters pulled down.

How the NeoConMen don't give the christian evangelicals an even break

Pigs in pokes

Lots of supposed christian policies got talked about by the NeoConMen but they never got delivered did they?

As David Kuo points out NeoConMen are "cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain," ignoring issues such as poverty, and limiting faith-based grants to organizations that are "politically friendly to the administration." Those who become part of the neocon team 8 billion dollars was prommised but only about 21 million was paid out. And all the recipients of the 21 million made a big fuss about how good Bush was to the christian evangelicals and used the cash for their bid for control of their particular church group.

Interestingly the NeoConMen removed this budget from the oversight by congress. The lock in got to keep anyone from blowing the con.

My guess: they also use it to control congressmen by only passing the pork back to congressmen who tow the NeoConMen's bolshevik line but people can judge themselves.

The rush and the fear

You should always be wary of someone wanting to make you afraid. They want your adrenaline up so you wont think. Adrenaline turns off thought so you have more ability to react. Which is good in an emergency but bad in election where you want to carefully weigh up the facts.

Any one notice the NeoConMen's fear based adds Osama, mixed with images of democrats absurd?

Then there is all that vote for us or the democrats will be in power. Would that really be so bad?

The close of elections is in 13 days it provides the natural end to the NeoConMen's lock out sale. And when you look at you bag of goodies you find:

As the Christian evangelicals did that of the $8 billion per year they were promissed, they came up $7,969,000,000 short on the promise. That is right they were sold a pig in a poke.

Will the NeoConMen ever give a sucker an even break?

Think before you vote and most importantly ask yourself some qquestions. The questions every person considering voting Republican needs to ask themselves are:

Is government bigger under the NeoConMen than under Clinton?

Economically who benefited from the tax breaks?

Is your budget tighter than it used to be?

Is the USA up to it eyeballs in debt to China?

Was Iraq a lie?

Which media and party officials hid Mark Foley's activities?

Have the prices of oil doubled under the NeoConMen?

Have the NeoConMen delivered on their Christian promises?

Have you been conned?

Will you be conned again?

And most importantly of all:

Will the NeoConMen ever give a sucker an even break?

Kind Regards Walker

[Garcia 0]

Hey, Bush will be out in two years. so quit whining, its only temporary.

Every day Bush is in charge is another day for him to fuck up something. The sooner he is out, the better. I wouldn't be too suprised if the one taking his spot will be a bad one too, but every US president in the future will have to work their arse off to be worse than mr. Bush

Quote[/b] ]about all these claims about GITMO holding "illegal" detainees: If you can put facts behind your posts we may believe you.

And if all the detainees there was legal detainees, why would USA have to break human rights and loads of the values they claim to stand for and defend to take care of them? If they actually had anything on the people there, why go through all the trouble? Or do Bush & Co just love trouble and breaking laws?

[Donnervogel 0]

@Sophion-Black

Quote[/b] ]An "alien unlawful combatant" is someone who is not a citizen of the US (in this case) and engages the US by way of extreme unconventional warfare (such as be-headings). You can now see how the two differ.

I am really amused that you actually answered to this. Obviously I know how the US defines that term (see reply to billybob). That however doesn't change the fact that it is a totally perverted thing making no legal sense.

@billybob2002

yes I read the definitions of "(un)lawful combatant" but it simply makes no sense. Not legally nor in praxis. It is simply a crippeled definition to rob people of their right in order to hold them without charge so one can conveniently violate human rights.

There are enough names already for the enemy the US is facing. Thhose "unlawful enemy combatants" are simply rebels/insurgents/guerillias/criminals/freedom fighters/terrorists. And as I said already I fail to understand how the US aggression against Iraq was "lawful" but this is an enntirely different topic.

However there are enough laws already to deal with terrorists/rebels if they comit illegal acts. The only difference is that then they actually get a chance to defend themselfs in a court wich has to be held within a specific time after their arrest and they actually get to know of what they are being accused. But since abiding the law seems to be a problem to the Bush administration they prefer to suspend the rights of those individuals. Wich raised the question for me: Why would it be so impossible to convict those people that you have to suspend their trials for as long as possible? I mean the Bush administration is very quick to call them unlawful and yet it is unable to convict them. Something seems very strange to me there.

Quote[/b] ]Also, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this part of the MCA....

Quote[/b] ]

Prohibits any person in the custody or control of the United States, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Well I actually implicitly did but if your read the definitions of those violation scattered across the entire document you see that under many circumstances it allows somethinhg like "light" torture. Meaning it prohibids "severe" torture and such things. Now "severe" is very open to interpretation for one and also it implies that you can use methods that do not cause "severe" mental or physical dammage.

And lastly about the habeas corpus issues. As you can read not even your source can be very certain on it and this exactly the problem. And as I explained earlier the problem is not that US citizens are allowed to be tried under that law. But the problem is that you lose too many constitutional right if some malicious person accuses you of being an "alien unlawful combatant". Even if they could not convict you (but I think they could given their possibilities under the MCA and other military justice documents to deny you from doing certain things) they could still hold you indefinitly without charging you.

The specific weaknes of this law is that the accusation of being an "alien unlawful combatant" is entirely subjective since it does not require a conviction. Basicly they can imply that you are a criminal before you have been convicted of a crime. And this is a grave violation of a fundamental legal principle. Once this has happened you lose all the rights that woul allow you to appeal to a court to report anything illegal that happened during you arrest or wich led to your arrest. So basicly you lost legal protection then.

And that aside. This law is by itself a grave violation of the UN human rights charter and the geneva convention wich makes it illegal per se as the US has signed those documents.

And even then it is still a violation of the US constitution because there are not enough protections for non US citizens but the US constitution takes effect for every person in the US - citizen or not (this is alss an issue with the Guantanamo situation)

Basicly the US constitution guarantees the habeas corpus rights to any person on US territory but the MCA takes it away from some of those people wich clearly violates the US constitution under these circumstances.

[Sophion-Black 0]

It's hard to make laws about war. It's just awkward to say "Well, you can kill the guy here in that situation but like this... no."

Anyways, to put it in perspective: the MCA is used to keep militias off the streets and cut down on IED's and such. I'm not sure how it's really going to be used or if it's going to be effective. but it's something i need to be learning because of my career choice.

Quote[/b] ]And even then it is still a violation of the US constitution because there are not enough protections for non US citizens but the US constitution takes effect for every person in the US - citizen or not (this is also(?) an issue with the Guantanamo situation)

You know, GITMO is disputed territory. It's claimed by both the US and Cuba. Ever since Castro took power the US sends money to the Cuban embassy for the "lease" of GITMO. But it just comes back with the repetitive "get off our island." The only thing that makes GITMO "US Territory" is Old Glory flying her post. When the US Flag is not posted, technically its then becomes Cuban territory. So yeah... that just may be a "little" problem with GITMO.

[Donnervogel 0]

You know, GITMO is disputed territory. It's claimed by both the US and Cuba. Ever since Castro took power the US sends money to the Cuban embassy for the "lease" of GITMO. But it just comes back with the repetitive "get off our island." The only thing that makes GITMO "US Territory" is Old Glory flying her post. When the US Flag is not posted, technically its then becomes Cuban territory. So yeah... that just may be a "little" problem with GITMO.

This situation is what I was hinting at. Since the territory ownership is not clearly defined it offers a way to suspend the US constitution since technically one can argue it is not US territory and therefore the US constitution does not apply.

However I find this moraly very questionable for a nation comitted to export freedom and democracy into the world...

Quote[/b] ] the MCA is used to keep militias off the streets and cut down on IED's and such

This is clearly wrong as the act does not deal with Iraq (or Afghanistan) at all. The act only deals with military comissions and also is thought to be specifically developed to deal with people arrested in the "war on terror" as US media likes to call it. Those people so far have been held for example in the US military installation in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is because the US administration is for some reason afraid to try those people under US federal law (wich has plenty of laws regarding terrorism and other crimes that those people are blamed with). In guantanamo they can be held without charge indefinitly. But due to growing criticism from the international community about this clear violation of human rights and the geneva convention the Bush administration declared that those people will recieve a military trial in the near future. Not suprisingly shortly afterwards the MCA of 2006 was proposed to the congress. The central points of that document are the rules under wich "alien unlawful combatants" can be tried, wich is what the people being held in guantanamo are labeled as.

This won't have any direct effect on the situation in iraq because.

1. Iraqi insurgents and terrorists comitting acts of violence in Iraq are primarily subject to Iraqi law.

2. The US already has the posibility since before the Iraq war to hold "unlawful combatants" in guantanamo without charge indefinitly.

[Sophion-Black 0]

This won't have any direct effect on the situation in iraq because.

1. Iraqi insurgents and terrorists comitting acts of violence in Iraq are primarily subject to Iraqi law.

Well, If they attack the US and is caught by the US do you think the the US will hand him over to a government that is seeking help from a terrorists to help run itself?

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

This won't have any direct effect on the situation in iraq because.

1. Iraqi insurgents and terrorists comitting acts of violence in Iraq are primarily subject to Iraqi law.

Well, If they attack the US and is caught by the US do you think the the US will hand him over to a government that is seeking help from a terrorists to help run itself?

Well - a fair trial like any other modern country would be suitable... Can't believe you are calling a country a "superpower" when it means towards goal and its beliefs are close to Europes - 6 hundreds years ago.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, If they attack the US

Since when are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Italy or other countries where people got kidnapped on the street and taken to Gitmo US territory ?

Quote[/b] ]hand him over to a government that is seeking help from a terrorists to help run itself?

Source ?

You´re suggesting that US is collaborating with a terrorist regime, not that this would be something new, but in case of Iraq it would ridicule all US efforts and statements.

In fact what you´re saying is that US soldiers die for supporting terrorists

[Donnervogel 0]

This won't have any direct effect on the situation in iraq because.

1. Iraqi insurgents and terrorists comitting acts of violence in Iraq are primarily subject to Iraqi law.

Well, If they attack the US and is caught by the US do you think the the US will hand him over to a government that is seeking help from a terrorists to help run itself?

As far as I am informed by far the most arrests of Insurgents/"Terrorists" are made by Iraqi forces and many are given into Iraqi custody even when arrested by US forces. You have to see that the most of them are not high profile or Al Quaida figures. They are rather criminals or rebel militias or something like that. However the US deports high profile figures to Guantanamo too. But that's rather the exception, they wouldn't have enough room in Guantanmo anyway to detain everyone they arrest there. But the deportation are not new under the MCA of 2006 so they already did it all the time they were in Iraq and it obviously didn't make Iraq a safe place.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Source ?

You´re suggesting that US is collaborating with a terrorist regime, not that this would be something new, but in case of Iraq it would ridicule all US efforts and statements.

In fact what you´re saying is that US soldiers die for supporting terrorists

USA Today

Quote[/b] ]Al-Maliki's Shiite-dominated government depends on some militia leaders for political support.

I also remember seeing on either ABC or NBC news that Iraq's PM was shown in a video asking for help from a top terrorist (I think they said he was a strong anti-American, and later explained he was a top guy for a militia). I remember it! I'm not making it up, it sure pissed me off when i heard it.

@Donnervogel:

What I really want to see happen is when a foreign terrorist does any physical damage, and we can prove it without a doubt; Iraq should send the bill to that country. That might cut down on foreign terrorists. Since it would be costly, foreign governments may try to stop them from crossing the boarders.

Its a big hope, and i don't think it will work an extended amount of time. But its worth trying.

[EiZei 0]

Iraq should send the bill to that country.

Or else what? They'll hire a repo man?

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Let me tell you a small anecdote, that at first glance might appear offtopic, but it's not - think about it

--

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result -- all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here.

And that, my friends, is how company policy begins

--

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">http://www.thealders.net

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Monkey Story

Huh? Can you tie in what that has to do with... whatever it is your going for?

Quote[/b] ]Or else what? They'll hire a repo man?

Good point. I guess they could just trade with the "West" instead of its neighbors. I dunno, it sounded like i would be a good idea. it would get the other countries to think about whats going on.