"Beginning of the end of America"

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by tmny, Oct 19, 2006.

  1. tmny

    tmny Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    earth
    We have lived as if in a trance.

    We have lived as people in fear.


    And now—our rights and our freedoms in peril—we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing. Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy. For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:


    A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.



    Full video and rest of commentary here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/#storyContinued
     
  2. Nitrofiend

    Nitrofiend New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    He didn't give any real information to the present-day situation whatsoever, he just flaunted a bunch of lamenting rhetoric.
     
  3. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    The "Military Commissions Act of 2006."

    That's what this law is being called. It allows Bush, as commander in cheif of our military, to be judge, jury and hangman for anyone he thinks is a threat to our "national security."

    In an AP article (source), Senator Russ Feingold of WI (who is likely running for president in 2008) is quoted:

    "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
    "It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," (...) "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

    Think he's lying? Look at the law yourself.




    "Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

    • `(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

    • `(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.

    • `(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

    • `(d) Punishments- A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war."
    To me, and i'm sure to anyone with much of a brain, this says that: a) the United States military is now the reigning legal system of the world; b) "Lawful Enemy Combatants" who break the laws of war (double-speak anyone?) are not subject to this portion of this act, but; c) Bush and/or his cronies decide who is "lawful" and who is "unlawful" (does anyone else see the injustices here?); d) "If we don't expressly say you can't do it to a 'convicted' prisoner, you may punish him/her any way you choose."


    How is that justice? Are these the American values we're trying to instill in the countries we "liberate"?


    These are SAD times indeed.
     
  4. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    It's an old, cheesy much twisted quote I know but Franklin was a smart man and I'm sure he's turning in his grave right now. I'm not American for which I have never been more grateful. Not because I dislike Americans, I don't, but for what they have allowed their Government to do in their name over the last 50 years. The title of this thread echoes what I have said here several times before.

    Don't worry I doubt you will be alone on that particular slippery slope.:rolleyes:
     
  5. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    Oh, please do be careful what you say, Dong. If you piss off Bush, you can be labeled an enemy combatant, and according to this law, nobody has the right to challenge that label! Remember, the constitutional protections of the US only apply to our citizens; the rest of the world must subjugate itself to us or pay the penalty.
     
  6. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    In a war of words he's a dead man, anything else...I'm probably screwed. But I've been screwed before and survived. I don't look good in Orange however so that could be a concern.:eek:

    EDIT: Re-reading your post, I bolded a sentence of what you said, it make me smile.
     
  7. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Joyboy, please do be careful what you say. Remember, regardless of his actions, Jose Padilla was an american citizen when he was "detained indefinitely" as an enemy combatant and held incommunicado, without charges, without access to an attorney, without notification of any other person. That was before The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Just imagine what they will do with it, now that they have it on paper and will claim that since they made it law, it's legal.
     
  8. Nitrofiend

    Nitrofiend New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Under what criteria must one exactly fall under to be classified as an "enemy combatant"?
     
  9. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    One must simply be deemed an "enemy combatant" by the President or the Secretary of Defense, at least so far as this legislation is concerned.
     
  10. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    You sir, are correct. My definition of one who is protected by the US constitution was far too lenient. Let me rephrase: The constitutional protections of the US only apply to those of our citizens who are deemed worthy of constitutional protections by GW Bush & Co.
     
  11. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    I didn't put my full research energy into this one, but the little searching I did led me to the conclusion that the specifics of the guidelines are classified. How's that for "if you don't know, I won't tell you."?
     
  12. rugbydude

    rugbydude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Beautiful downtown Cape Town in sunny South Africa
    ...having grown up in Europe the US and South Africa to name a few, not to mention studied in New York, it consistently amazes me that a talented funny intelligent insightful resourceful highly organised and generally fun nation has allowed this Play to reach this level of farce and indeed life-threatening drama. it's very very sad and tragic. go figure...
     
  13. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just be thankful it's not the lax criteria specified by Executive Order 9066, by which military commanders could declare areas, even inside the US, to be "exclusion zones" from which "any and all persons" could be excluded. They could also specify just who the "any" persons were, apparently at whim. This was the legal basis for "excluding" more than 100,000 people, over 60% of them US citizens, from their homes on the Pacific coast (mainly California), and forcibly shipping them to remote internment camps. The Supreme Court upheld this atrocity in 1944, with the somewhat feeble rationale that there was a war on, so tough shit.

    So by the postulated argument ("we live in a trance", blah blah - not really an argument), the American experiment ended in ignominy when Franklin Roosevelt signed that order in February 1942. Perhaps America recovered a bit in 1988, when the odious policy was officially reversed by Ronald Reagan.
     
  14. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    Well, the bill Mr. Bush signed yesterday DOES give a definition, albeit a rather feeble one:

    "Sec. 948a. Definitions

    • In this chapter:

      • (1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

        • (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

        • (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the MilitaryCommissionsAct of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
    So, basically, any person who is hostile toward the US or it's buddies -OR- anyone else Bush or his cronies wishes to define as an enemy combatant.
     
  15. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    EO9066 was indeed a frightening, heinous, and outlandishly broad order. That it survived as long as it did is as frightening or moreso. However, my sources show a slightly different conclusion to EO9066. It survived 3 democratic and 4 republican successive presidents before being rescinded on April 19, 1976 by president Gerald Ford (dem). President Ronald Reagan (repub) involved himself by signing into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided for reparations to the Japanese who were in the internment camps.
     
  16. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    Once upon a time there was a Roman Republic which practiced democracy. Then one day a man named Ceaser came along and promsied security and the Roman Republic died and the Roman Empire began. Of course there was already an empire, but the city of Rome itself and its citizens were a republic.

    Once upon a time there was an American Republic which practiced democracy. The one day a man named George Bush came along and promised security from terrorists and the American Republic died and the Anerican Empire was born. Up to now the American Republic was content to just have peace and alliance treaties with its clients and didn't mess with sovereignty of other countries. No more. Now with this act and other acts to follow the American Empire is being born. Unfortunately the empire will grow much to fast in scope. Unlike the old American Republic which was once admired the world over, this new American Empire will be hated and the hate will increase with time.

    Look for a coup that affectly makes the entire US Consitution invalid within 20 years unless this present group of people are turned out of office.

    The 2006 elections are America's last hope. Though I'm sure they will be rigged as well.
     
  17. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Nice analogy, Freddie. However:

    I disagree especially with the part I bolded. All this Act does is codify and in some twisted way seek to justify American current foreign and domestic policy.

    Interfering in the sovereignty of other nations, overtly or covertly has been standard US foreign policy MO for at least the last 50 years. For that reason alone I don't think the American Republic has been admired the world over for a long time, if indeed it ever truly was.
     
  18. ceg1526

    ceg1526 Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Minor correction. President Ford (our only non-elected president) was a Republican. Continue.
     
  19. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    The foreign policy of the United States of America has been riddled with meddling in the internal affairs, politics, and leadership of other countries. Although we actually do have federal laws that prohibit our government from participating in the assassination of foreign leaders, that has always pretty much just been a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" guideline - meaning that our government abides by that law, if the foreign leader is aligned with our world view, and ignores the law if the foreign leader is a "problem."

    I always find it amusing, disappointing, and ironic that the american people actually fall for the propaganda. If "country A" interferes with internal affairs in "country B", it is terrorism and imperialism. If the USA interferes in "country A", it is "in the name of our national security, and making the world safe for democracy." The actions are the same, but if it's us, it's god's will. If it's them, they are evil and must be destroyed.

    No wonder there are so many "american-haters" out there.
     
  20. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    DC, I agree, as I said above. It's this legacy that in part is behind my arguments with Claire in the Korea thread (which I must revisit). It's time for the US to keep its size 11s out of that situation, it will almost certainly make the situation worse, probably much worse. I don't see a military solution there, not a conventional one anyway. Sorry, a whole continent off topic! :eek:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted