[quote="PenultimateManStanding"] This is basically a "we are not fooling around with terrorists, folks, so tell the ACLU to bug out" bill it seems to me. quote]
I trust our NeoCon rulers not to abuse their powers under this Draconian new law.
I also just signed up as an Amway distributor have been told to expect a residual monthly income of $50K by year's end.
PeakOil is You
A Special Treat For My PO Homies
Re: A Special Treat For My PO Homies
by Lokutus » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 19:09:13
What will arrive first? Peak Oil or the Second Coming? My money is now on the latter.
-
Lokutus - Tar Sands
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: OR, USA
Re: A Special Treat For My PO Homies
by PenultimateManStanding » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 19:33:14
OK, fine. You think it's a Nazi power grab, I think it's a screw the ACLU we aren't giving no Geneva Convention rights to no raghead terrorists bill. So ah, well, whatever.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
Re: A Special Treat For My PO Homies
by JustinFrankl » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 19:52:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '(')Interesting statement by Walt Kelly by the way since it contains two grammatical errors. Enemy is one of those words that can be singular or plural. If he intended it to be singular, then he should have said "he is I". If he meant it as plural, then it would be "they are we". He never should use "me" or "us" with "is" or "are" because these are forms of the passive verb "to be". But then for a cartoonist, who cares!)
Ugh! You're taking potshots at my sig!
"It is unwise to annoy cartoonists." -- Matt Groening (rhymes with "complaining")
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
- JustinFrankl
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Re: A Special Treat For My PO Homies
by JustinFrankl » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 20:03:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I') am well aware that some of you don't agree.
The provisions in the law seem overly ripe for abuse. Expressing dissent against this law is punishable by this law. The law concentrates more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Make two lists. One list is titled "When Power Corrupts". The other is titled "When Power Doesn't Corrupt". Compare the lists. Given this law, judge the likelihood of ending up on the Doesn't list.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
- JustinFrankl
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Re: A Special Treat For My PO Homies
by PenultimateManStanding » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 20:28:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', 'E')xpressing dissent against this law is punishable by this law.
Show me where that is written.
edit: I see you are no longer here. When you come back, I expect an answer. There is no excuse for a man with a chart topping IQ to misrepresent the facts. Show me that I'm wrong.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
Re: A Special Treat For My PO Homies
by JustinFrankl » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 23:35:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', 'E')xpressing dissent against this law is punishable by this law.
Show me where that is written.edit: I see you are no longer here. When you come back, I expect an answer. There is no excuse for a man with a chart topping IQ to misrepresent the facts. Show me that I'm wrong.
Putting aside that expectation-soon-to-become-a-sense-of-entitlement ...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n “unlawful enemy combatant” can be any person – not excluding American citizens - determined to be one by a “competent tribunal” established by the President or the Secretary of Defense [Sec.948a(1)(ii)]. What comprises a competent tribunal – or by what criteria they would make such a determination - is not defined.
If I misrepresented something, it was unintentional. I was reading your wiki quote at the same time I was processing the RIP USA post at this thread, and was a little stunned by the valid claim that "this bill could cause you to be labelled an enemy combatant for protesting ANY government policy."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 grants the POTUS, or worse, a non-elected official in the Secretary of Defense, discretion for establishing a "competent tribunal" (undefined and without external validation). This tribunal, so far with no checks and balances and also at their own discretion, can declare anyone for any plausible reason they choose an "unlawful enemy combatant".
The law, as written, does not explicitly state that dissent against the law specifically or government in general is punishable under the law. The law, as written, is so broad and vague that picketters at an American auto manufacturer could be viewed as "enemy combatants" due to the importance of the American auto industry to the American economy. "Threatening the economy threatens the War on Terror and the safety of the American people", they could say, "Strikes, Stop-Works, and Sick-Ins will no longer be permitted."
This specific example is of course a strawman, but still valid to illustrate the general case that given the law the way it is broadly written, the US government can now publicly arrest any citizen for any plausible reason in the name of the War on Terror.
Given the law the way it's written, a citizen wouldn't even be able to contest it without knowing why s/he was being held, having no access to a civilian attorney because of "Secret" classified information, while being corced to testify against yourself ("compulsory self-incrimination"). All conducted in private by a closed "military commission".
A more accurate assertion on my part would have been: "Expressing dissent against this law could conceivably be a detainable offense under this law. But under this law, you could conceivably never know exactly why you were being held."
And then I still go back to the issue about power concentration and corruption. The provisions in the law are harsh enough, but things get dicey when they're at the hands of only two individuals. It gets worse if they're at the discretion of an alcoholic cokehead and a crooked liar. But then it gets dismal as we have to deal with Bush and Rumsfeld calling the shots.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
