| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
Comments:
<0> why the hell WOULDNT you hold someone who knows the kind of info his driver does
<1> yeah, foreign terrorists with access to WMD and international support are.. just like Randy Weaver.
<2> Glock21, so basically they can just define any person anywhere in the world as an "enemy combatant"?
<3> The adjective doesn't change the fact that we are supposed to be talking about combatants.
<4> its not like osama was hailing taxi's
<1> not that I really have any sympathy for Randy Weaver.
<0> bun-bun lol
<3> ENDtheNWO... it would be preferable if they only considered actual combatants to be combatants.
<2> Timur, i'm not making a comparison.
<4> well i would argue that osamas driver IS a combatant :)
<1> you just did.
<4> driver/bodyguards for high ranking people are armed and fight in the interests of the official
<4> DOH i did :)
<2> Glock21, yes but I'm just surprised that there isn't any legal criteria for labelling them as such
<4> theres TONS of military criteria
<1> "if Hillary Clinton became president, she could label Randy Weaver an "enemy combatant" and have him taken to Gitmo?"
<2> Glock21, it means that they can basically label anyone an enemy combatant?
<4> no
<3> Well typically the military decides on the battlefield who is or is not a combatant. It's not something congress has much authority over.
<4> there are rules and regs for the military.. who can and cant be a combantant.. they have guidelines
<2> Timur, yes that was an example of a political dissident or someone the elected president might not like...it was an example of potential abuse.
<1> paranoids of the world, unite
<4> its not like they are picking up grandmother ishna and just sticking a label on her
<5> but like the thing we're forgetting is
<2> Timur, now I'm paranoid? Because I see don't like the idea of government having that power?
<5> even if a couple people in Gitmo are getting ****edf
<5> ...well, thats par for the course, isn't it?
<3> Dissidents have specific protections under the Constitution and federal law.
<1> because you don't seem to understand the nature of the threat which mandates such power be used.
<6> ENDtheNWO: would you prefer them not having that power? would you like osama's taxi driver to be free? I sure wouldn't
<4> you cannot do ANYTHING flawlessly
<1> is it naivete, paranoia, or just stupidity, not sure.
<7> all 3
<8> glock there is no forum where a president has to argue whether someone is an enemy combatant, since he doesnt need a warrant, so its unchecked
<1> the answer is (D) All the above? ok
<4> i wouldnt call him osama's taxi driver its intentionally misleading
<8> glock this is why people question the wiretapping program
<2> ^sAs|WRK, well actually I see more of a threat from a government as powerful as the US, if it became dictatorial, than from Osama's driver.
<4> like saying osama's babysitter
<5> i cant realistically see the US becoming dictatorial, though
<3> If someone is in an enemy military force they've crossed over from dissent to a military target.
<5> in any blatant sense
<4> the threat from the driver is real and current AND there is an interest in keeping him confined.. .intelligence and such.... the US is not currently dictatoratial...
<8> glock terrorists arent a part of enemy military forces either
<2> Glock21, what I was saying is that if they can arrest US citizens and label them enemy combatants, can't they then do that against people they don't like?
<3> If you claim to be part of al Qaeda, then you might get yourself in serious trouble. If you say you think al Qaeda is right, then you are still within your rights.
<4> and the threat is even bigger if jupiter left its orbit and crashed into the earth
<8> but the point was that if the president doesnt need a warrant, then he has no forum where he's required to argue the person is a combatant
<1> see, this is why I can't be bothered with people of this ilk.
<1> later folks
<7> aw
<4> see ya timur
<3> ENDtheNWO... the recourse for such an event if the government actually does so is to challenge your detainment under your habeas corpus rights.
<8> glock the president can suspend habeas corpus rights if its considered wartime
<2> Glock21, do enemy combatants have that right?
<1> sorry :) but it's just too insipid and one's heard such too many times, always with the same result, so. :)
<3> redfish... not really.
<4> we shouldn't really be addressing hypotheticals as if its happening
<4> Timur yeah but one person at a time :)
<3> redfish... only during invasion or rebellion, and this is considered by the courts to mean specifically that the civil courts aren't available for such matters.
<3> ENDtheNWO... citizens of the US do.
<1> bun: after 1000 times... :)
<4> heh well hopefully 500 were convinced :)
<2> Glock21, so Jose Padilla can?
<3> ENDtheNWO... he can and has been working on it for some time now.
<3> Same with Hamdi.
<4> the courts have been hearing him since 2003
<2> Who is Hamdi?
<4> padilla that is
<3> Hamdi is another US citizen detained by the military.
<2> bun-bun, have they rejected his petition?
<3> I think he may have been released now though.
<4> END you should read for your self
<4> and hamdi is mentioned too
<1> bun: I don't think more than 1, 2 were, if any; people with such views are usually in my experience just touting them not to allow convincing but to rant about their paranoid obsessions.
<3> I think they turned him over to another nation that wanted him for certain crimes... but it's been a while since I checked on him.
<4> http://tinyurl.com/qpq7w
<2> Glock21, haha what?
<2> Glock21, they handed a US citizen over to another country?
<1> Hamdi was sent to Saudi, afaik
<3> Basically if you're a US citizen and the government argues that you are an enemy combatant and detains you, you can challenge your detainment in court.
<4> latest decision was sep 9, 2005 when a 3 judge panel of the 4th us circuit court of appeals ruled that President Bush DOES have the authority to hold him without charges
<3> ENDtheNWO... I think he was a dual citizenship person.
<3> But don't quote me on that.
<1> with the provision he give up his citizenship
<1> Glock: right
<2> Glock21, ah
<7> does dual citizenship even apply in teh US?
<4> its a HEAVILY grey area pub
<2> Yeah I thought US had full citizenship
<3> Publius... if nothing else, it makes extradition pretty easy.
<3> :P
<2> ie. renouncing other allegiances
<4> its not legal from the 'us' side but is legal from other countries
<3> ENDtheNWO... pretty much on paper... in application, not so much.
<1> Pub: yeah, there are a # of nations with which the US recognizes dual citizenship
<1> most of W. Europe for example
<4> so hamdi 'gave up' us citizenship and was released to the saudies
<1> our stronger allies
<7> Timur: and when it comes be tried for an offense commited in the states or against the US?
<4> timur seriously? I thought it was 'ok' but not a true dual
<3> ENDtheNWO... but the most important part of the citizen detainment issue is that Habeas rights are still afforded to you.
<4> unlike say the germany and austria or holland or something
<2> Ok so what do you think happens if a foreign citizen is arrested under civil law within the US...are they afforded the right not to be arbitrarily detained, etc as in the BoR?
<3> ENDtheNWO... the big blunder by the Bush admin was denying counsel to the detained citizen which was absurd.
<4> if you are arrested under civil law its NOT ARBITRARY
<3> ENDtheNWO... under civil law? Then detainment would fall under civil law... not military.
<3> And in turn would have nothing to do with what we're discussing.
<1> yeah the government just goes around randomly arresting people for no discernible reason. mhm
<9> question: is this channel's website www.ircpolitics.org?
<4> they have to have a reason therefor its not arbitrary.. you seem to be missing that point
<1> f_: yeah
<3> f_... answer: yes
<9> alright, then i'm in the right place. :)
<4> wait a few minutes till you decide that f_ :)
<1> ok, later all
<7> lol
<4> catch ya timur
<3> cya tim
<4> i need to go to bed too.. i have about .5 million of NAS equipment to test tomorrow
<2> bun-bun, well I mean say a foreigner was held in prison without being charged, or even held b a private individual, kidnapped...would they be afforded the right not to be arbitrarily detained, as in the BoR
<5> nope
<5> and i mean it kinda ****s
<5> but really, thats the price you pay for rock and roll
<3> ENDtheNWO... if they were within US court jurisdiction they'd still have habeas rights under the current interpretation.
<3> A foreigner arrested here still has some protections, though not as many as a citizen.
<5> they have the right to have their consulate notified
<5> ...thats all i know for sure ;)
<4> well in some cases more.. since instead of doing time if guilty they may be deported instead
<2> Glock21, what I was interested in specifically, was the part in the BoR, I can't find it now for some reason, where it makes the distinction between a "person" and a "citizen", whether the USSC recognizes any difference between the two terms?
<7> hehehe
<3> ENDtheNWO... they do make a distinction. Some rights are specifically protected for citizens as opposed to foreigners.
<3> Mainly the fundamental rights.
<10> Publius: Illegal aliens are costing american tax payers $200+ billion/year
<2> ok
<2> thanks
<3> Many people were screaming that Padilla and Hamdi deserved habeas rights... but that was never a real issue in their cases.
<7> Johan: Frankly, I don't like the immigrant issue. I'm tired of arguing it, no offense. Care to speak on Iran?
<3> They were never denied those rights by the government.
<2> Glock21, ok
<3> What the government did deny was access to counsel due to security fears... which the courts did not agree with.
<3> And they resolved some jurisdictional nonsense over which jurisdiction such a claim should be made in.
<10> Publius: The only people who benefit from illegal aliens are the illegal employers who hire them..final point
<7> WASHINGTON The United States and the European Union filed a trade case Thursday against China in a dispute involving auto parts as the Bush administration moved to deal with rising concern over a soaring deficit with China.
<7> Johan: fair enough...Iran?
<3> The jurisdictional nonsense was the most legally complicated of the mess and took most of the time it seemed.
<7> The complaint alleges that China is imposing high taxes on imported auto parts in violation of commitments it made when the country joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
<7> stupid stupid Chinese
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#politics
#photoshop
kanat enas
#beginner
quicktime alternative keeps crashing
#linux-noob
ku klux_ klan
#computers
#computers
#linuxhelp
|
|