Congress are going to pass a bill today, that will change your world

posted by Agit8dChop
Ive bee nwatching the news closley, and observing RICE as she's been speaking in regards to nkorea, she gave me the creeps.
She was uneasy, and nervous to be on camera , not in regards to the korean issue, but it felt like she wasnt happy being one of the last officials on camera, front row n centre before something goes down.

So have I, and I noticed the same nervousness in her voice, a trembling, a viberato, like she was about to break down any second or disintegrate in tears.

Actually I didn't look, just listened while checking ats, so I didn't pay much attention to what she said, but it was about North Korea.
I couldn't help but thinking she was shattered.
It was not the voice of the Secretary of State, but the voice of her body.
Body language really talks dosn't it?

Marge:

Under the new laws enacted and passed the president has the right to strip any citizen of its status of citizenship, that would make them an alien anyway.

You mind providing a link to the laws which were passed that enables the Presdent the ability to strip a US citizen of their citizen status? As per the WOT?

Not the laws where legal immigrants citizenship can be revoked for breaking the law.

Thanks!

Originally posted by ferretman2
Marge:

Under the new laws enacted and passed the president has the right to strip any citizen of its status of citizenship, that would make them an alien anyway.

You mind providing a link to the laws which were passed that enables the Presdent the ability to strip a US citizen of their citizen status? As per the WOT?

Not the laws where legal immigrants citizenship can be revoked for breaking the law.

Thanks!

Ferretman, See...the thing is, she can't. Sorry Marg, I really don't mean to single you out, it's just a coincidence that this came up now.

IMO ferret, what happens here @ ATS...alot, is that members read a story written by an extremist (sometimes leftwing sometimes rightwing) that has expertly manipulted the context of laws, statements, historical events, etc, and the member then relies on the truthfulness and objectivity of the story without independently checking the facts. Sometimes it's worse. Sometimes they accept as fact anything another member says as long as it fits in with their own views.

I'm not being critical of this phenomena, it's human nature. Hell...I'm guilty of it as much as anyone else.

Just felt like speechifying a bit.

Dark.....thanks.....

I guess this just reaffirms alot about this site and the direction it has taken, no longer are facts needed. People can just state anything as 'fact' without providing any sources; it wasn't always like this on ATS.

Others will believe Marges 'statement' as fact without actually researching that particular statement....leading to another mis-informed individual believing in something that has no truth to it what-so-ever.

How is that helpful to people in general?

It isn't....and people should be ashamed at themsleves for creating 'facts' and misinforming people to meet a political adgenda.

Secretary of Defense to carry out such sentences. Prohibits a combatant under trial from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

from original WP article

The above etal.completely distorts the contents of the bill (s 3930: ‘Military Commissions Act 2006’). The bill reinforces the rights of ‘lawful enemy combatants’, the simple use of the word ‘combatant’ by the article is very, very misleading.

First, this bill is specific in that it applies to “alien unlawful enemy combatants ” and further defines “lawful enemy combatants” thus separating the two statuses. Persons deemed ‘alien unlawful military combatants’ would be moved to the jurisdiction for trial to a military commission under UCMJ rules...not 'lawful combatants'.

The Geneva Conventions “rights” do not clearly exist for ‘unlawful alien enemy combatants’ in explicit detail anyway. This has been the source of many, many legal arguments over the years and is still subject to debate. The bill is congruent with most of the IRC’s argument (pdf.) that articles 27 and 37, 71-76 of GC IV are at least minimally applicable to ‘unlawful combatants’.

Secondly, the Secretary must issue orders to convene a military commission to try individuals under this bill, he can not just plainly “rule”….

Under Sec. 3:d. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (a bill): “The Secretary shall be authorized to carry out a sentence of punishment decreed by a military commission.”…this also allows the Secretary to commute sentencing(s)!

Additionally and fully reinforced by this bill is hearsay and statements obtained under torture are not allowed period etc…and from section 949 of the MCA 2006 on…the bill deals with trial procedures and strict military and military justice codes (UCMJ) of procedure…

Military Commissions Act of 2006 (pdf) full document.
Uniform Code of Military Justice

There has been considerable debate, compromise and public exposure concerning this bill...? Even if/when signed into law...remember, it has not yet been contested in one single court.



mg

Hmm.. interesting law.. though not new..

republicans have been saying they want a law like this for a long time now have they not.. this has been controversial though and as far as i know has never made it to a vote yet?

Maybe they are simply trying to get the bills passed that they don't think will pass after the elections. Though I highly doubt that it will pass, I mean alot of Republicans such as Mc cain where very much so against any bill like this, being a vitim of torture him self.

If it where passed it could be used against any one who is not an American citizen.. I do not see how this effects us, citizens, in any way?

As for Rice sounding different in her speech.. maybe she has a cold or something? Honestly I think she is one of the most evil of the Bush crew, why on earth would she be affraid to give the last message before nuclear war or something? Do you think she is innocent .. that she is pro American people or someting?

Methinks the dire consequences predicted to arise from this new law are much ado about almost nothing.

First of all, this law levels the playing field for both sides. Terrorists cannot engage in hostilities outside the framework of the Geneva Conventions and then turn right around and claim legal protections under those same conventions--which is the situation we were faced with before this law. In other words, terrorists will be treated as the criminals they are, not as honorable combatants in a war. Notice that nowhere in the law, or the statement above, does the U.S. have any right to mistreat prisoners. Prisoners, even illegal combatants, will be treated in accordance with all the humane protocols of the Geneva Conventions--and then some--but they will not be entitled to the same legal protections.

Secondly, when and under what circumstances may a U.S. citizen be stripped of his or her citizenship? From whence does this power derive and who has the authority to invoke this power? I think you will find the law that was just passed does not change the rules about this in any material way.

A U.S. citizen may voluntarily renounce his/her citizenship--this has always been the case, so nothing has changed here. A naturalized citizen may be stripped of his/her citizenship if, by their words & deeds, they present clear evidence that the "oath of allegience" they took to become a U.S. citizen was not taken in good faith--again, nothing new here. A natural born, or naturalized, citizen may be stripped of their U.S. citizenship if they voluntarily swear an oath of allegience to a foreign power or government--once again, no change. What you seem to be referring to is language in the Patriot Act II that seemingly gives the right to the government to strip citizenship from anyone who knowingly and voluntarily aids & abets alien terrorist groups.

Let me just say that no one has ever been stripped of his/her citizenship under this act yet and it is doubtful they can be. The fourteenth ammendment to the constitution prevails here and that prevalence has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, there is pressure from many to change the rules somewhat so as to cover the case of the young man who voluntarily went to Afganistan, joined the Al-Queda terrorist group voluntarily, and then fought against U.S. & Allied forces voluntarily. The argument is that by his actions he demonstrated he was no longer a U.S. citizen. No action has been taken regarding the young man's citizenship yet and most likely there will be a Supreme Court case should any actions be taken. I, myself, don't like some of the language in the Patriot Act II, but I think your fears concerning U.S. citizenship are unfounded.

Should the young man mentioned above be stripped of his citizenship by government decree and that action be subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, along with the language of Patriot Act II, then I will worry.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Astronomer70]

Opinions and comments are in the eye of the beholder; our president already has brought back the tagging of traitor for one man that means that it can bring it back as needed even if the person in question has not done anything to our nation in terms direct of violence just inciting violence with comments.

That means he was stripped of his citizenship.

So it can be done and it’s in the hands of our government to do so as it seems fit.

So saying that it can not be done is just a matter of opinion until it happens.

The patriot act is one of these bills that will give the rights to the government to do with American citizens anything they can once they are charge as enemy combatants under Domestic Terrorism .

Also this is a huge expansion of the executive's reach, right into the workings of the courts and criminal justice system

Secret detention camps can detain indefinitely no only foreign or aliens but also any American charge as an enemy combatant or, a wide range of activities could be seen as attempts to influence government policy, including militant protests, strikes, and civil disobedience. As a result, "terrorism" essentially means whatever the government says it means.

Now we have bills to ensure that the already without rights aliens as specified, but that will mean also anybody that falls in those guile lines.

Then you call it paranoia and misinformation?

Some truly unprecedented changes are under way today in the U.S. legal system including, due process, probable cause, right to counsel, and judicial independence.

I call it the very steady road to a situation in our nation that will render any American citizen helpless depending what they will be tagged and targeted with.

I see dangerous times ahead of us and our nation with this bills, rules and laws that are left to open interpretations by the same people that made them.

The new bills, laws and regulations as interpreted by the ones in power is what will become a danger to us Americans in the name of fighting the ideology of terrorism and for the safety of the nation we are becoming a very easy target also.

Just because it has tagged aliens as the primary target doesn't mean that any American citizen can become a target also.

Is all about interpretations when the time comes.

Just because it has tagged aliens as the primary target doesn't mean that any American citizen can become a target also.

You are so correct......the day has arrived where all domestic crime will be called terrorism regardless of the crime.....stealing candy from a store terrorism......robbing a bank terrorism.......traffic violations terrorism.....criticizing the govt terrorism......then all the govt has to do is deem the accused an enemy combatant and shaaaaazaaam the accused is no longer a us citizen and is not protected by the bill of rights......then one only needs to look at the soviet union for the rest of the story.

People has forgotten already the infamous Patriot Act that is becoming bigger and bigger with all the new laws, rules and regulations that has been added by the Administration in the name of new bills to fight terror.


SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” definition to all American citizens.

Remember once tagged Enemy combatant you don’t have rights anymore.

Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)

www.epic.org...

Originally posted by marg6043

SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” definition to all American citizens.

Remember once tagged Enemy combatant you don’t have rights anymore.

Marg the above statement is blatently false. Enemy Combatants have all the rights of the Geneva Conventions. It is "Illegal Enemy Combatants" the law addresses and even they have rights. An American citizen is still an American citizen and still entitled to the rights of such.

Astronomer,

The Geneva Convention?

Are you serious? You cant be.

Another sad day for humanity!

[edit on 10/17/2006 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Marg the above statement is blatently false. Enemy Combatants have all the rights of the Geneva Conventions. It is "Illegal Enemy Combatants" the law addresses and even they have rights. An American citizen is still an American citizen and still entitled to the rights of such.

"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

Now tell me how many of the captured prisoners in US secret camps that has been tagged enemy combatants have Geneva convention rights.

Actually all the prisoners US is taking are called Unlawful combatants.

Like I say is all in the definition that is given onces captured Is in the president's right to make that distinction as commander in chief.

BTW with the new bill signed today The president give himself the rights to chose punishment for the detainees.

What a man.!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by marg6043
People has forgotten already the infamous Patriot Act that is becoming bigger and bigger with all the new laws, rules and regulations that has been added by the Administration in the name of new bills to fight terror.


SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” definition to all American citizens.

Section 501 of The Patriot Act Adressess the ability of the Attorney General to issue rewards to Combat Terrorism. I see nothing close to resembling authority to
tag American citizens as enemy combatants. Help me out.

Remember once tagged Enemy combatant you don’t have rights anymore.

You left out one important word..."ALIEN" actually two important words "unlawful" also.

Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)

Section 501 of what legislation?

www.epic.org...

Marge.....section 501 of the provided link is:

Sec. 501. Attorney General's authority to pay rewards to combat terrorism.

How does that have anything to do with illegal combatants?

You actually believe an illegal combatant, who has no standing army or country and does not follow the geneva conventions has a right to the US justice system which is paid by US taxpayers?

You can donate all the money you want to their defense....I don't want any of mine helping these people subvert our legal system.

You still haven't provided any source information to back up your claims.

The Geneva Convention means well but war has changed since it was written. There are rules for civilians and rules for soldiers. Terrorist are neither civilians or soldiers, they are both or neither. I would argue that the Geneva Convention does not covers this.


About the bill Bush is signing. All America is trying to do is keep it's laws up to date. Right now this is American law accourding to:

assembler.law.cornell.edu...

(b) Attempt or Conspiracy With Respect to Homicide.— Whoever outside the United States attempts to kill, or engages in a conspiracy to kill, a national of the United States shall—
(1) in the case of an attempt to commit a killing that is a murder as defined in this chapter, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(2) in the case of a conspiracy by two or more persons to commit a killing that is a murder as defined in section 1111 (a) of this title, if one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both so fined and so imprisoned.

To me B2 states that any al qaeda members can be imprisoned for life since they did/are trying to kill American civilians/soldiers.

If someone is going to bring up a torture arguement....here is american law on torture: assembler.law.cornell.edu... According to the above link, America did not break it's low on torture

Originally posted by marg6043
Opinions and comments are in the eye of the beholder; our president already has brought back the tagging of traitor for one man that means that it can bring it back as needed even if the person in question has not done anything to our nation in terms direct of violence just inciting violence with comments.

That means he was stripped of his citizenship.

Incorrect - it means he has been charged with treason and will be tried in a US Court of Law with the full protection of the US Constitution, Bill f Rights and US Code of Federal Regulations.

So it can be done and it’s in the hands of our government to do so as it seems fit.

So saying that it can not be done is just a matter of opinion until it happens.

Saying it cannot be done now, under current US laws is not opinion - it's fact.
If you want to argue this way you can say that the President can do anything he wants simply by changing the law in future and no one can argure against your position since its just an opinion and conjecture.

I'm speaking to the laws as they exist today, and almost nothing you have said is correct.

The patriot act is one of these bills that will give the rights to the government to do with American citizens anything they can once they are charge as enemy combatants under Domestic Terrorism .

Wrong again - show me the statute that authorizes the Government to charge US citizens as enemy combatants and then strip them of their Constitutional rights....Show me the Statute.

Also this is a huge expansion of the executive's reach, right into the workings of the courts and criminal justice system

It is not - its an expansion of the executive's reach into Military Commissions - totally separate from the US civil legal system.

Secret detention camps can detain indefinitely no only foreign or aliens but also any American charge as an enemy combatant

They CANNOT under any existing US Law - FALSE...INCORRECT....You cannot write these things and go unchallenged. Show us the laws that allow this.

My mistake that was the patriot act I

SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" definition to all American citizens who "may" have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.") Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.

Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person "had inferred from conduct" that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation.

Patriot act 2 2003

www.rickieleejones.com...

Wrong again - show me the statute that authorizes the Government to charge US citizens as enemy combatants and then strip them of their Constitutional rights....Show me the Statute.

Its not about authorization.....its about the fact the govt can accuse someone of commiting any type of crime call it terrorism then deem the accused any enemy combatant....its at this point rights are lost.....of course there is not going to be explicit language in the statue saying all americans can be charged as enemy combatants.....you have to be deemed a terrorist first and they can do that by labeling any crime terrorism.