I was right about MCA!

[Billo_Really]

I was right, but I wish I was wrong. TOT, how does it feel with all that egg on your face? All those posts claiming the Military Commissions Act didn't apply to citizens and low and behold, you were so f.u.c.k.i.n.g wrong! And where's that newbie who argued the same thing. Get his a.s.s up here too!

I want you all to know you were wrong!

You were wrong!

You were wrong!

Despite assurances from the major U.S. news media that American citizens retain their habeas corpus rights to a fair trial – even if non-citizens don’t – Justice Department lawyers have reasserted their claim that George W. Bush has the power to lock up anyone he chooses as an “enemy combatant” and effectively throw away the key.

And you have know idea how much I wanted it [to be wrong] to be me.

Because of this...

“A citizen, no less than an alien, can be an enemy combatant,” administration lawyer David B. Salmons told a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, on Feb. 1, adding that on such issues, the courts cannot interfere with the President’s wartime judgments.

...the MCA must be overturned by the Supreme Court as being the most un-Constitutional piece of legislation that was ever created in 200 years.

Because of this...

• The Supreme Court is no longer supreme
• We no longer have inalienable rights
• The Constitution is now "null" and "void"

...and to think people actually defended this. So I say from the bottom of my heart to those that support this bill, GTH!

 

[Billo_Really]

I was right, but I wish I was wrong. TOT, how does it feel with all that egg on your face? All those posts claiming the Military Commissions Act didn't apply to citizens and low and behold, you were so f.u.c.k.i.n.g wrong! And where's that newbie who argued the same thing. Get his a.s.s up here too!

I want you all to know you were wrong!

You were wrong!

You were wrong!

Despite assurances from the major U.S. news media that American citizens retain their habeas corpus rights to a fair trial – even if non-citizens don’t – Justice Department lawyers have reasserted their claim that George W. Bush has the power to lock up anyone he chooses as an “enemy combatant” and effectively throw away the key.

And you have know idea how much I wanted it [to be wrong] to be me.

Because of this...

“A citizen, no less than an alien, can be an enemy combatant,” administration lawyer David B. Salmons told a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, on Feb. 1, adding that on such issues, the courts cannot interfere with the President’s wartime judgments.

...the MCA must be overturned by the Supreme Court as being the most un-Constitutional piece of legislation that was ever created in 200 years.

Because of this...

• The Supreme Court is no longer supreme
• We no longer have inalienable rights
• The Constitution is now "null" and "void"

...and to think people actually defended this. So I say from the bottom of my heart to those that support this bill, GTH!

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Hate to say you were right? Bullshit, you said it twice.

 

[rathi]

This is terrible news. Although since when does this judge have the ability to make statements like that? Under what authority does he make his statements?

 

[Dezaad]

Hate to say you were right? Bullshit, you said it twice.

Well, I can certainly see how it would be mixed news for Billo. I am sure he'd rather have been wrong from the perspective of wanting the nation to remain the principled America he grew up in. On the other hand, he's almost certainly enjoying being able to gloat over someone who defended the passage of the law.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I was right, but I wish I was wrong. TOT, how does it feel with all that egg on your face? All those posts claiming the Military Commissions Act didn't apply to citizens and low and behold, you were so f.u.c.k.i.n.g wrong! And where's that newbie who argued the same thing. Get his a.s.s up here too!

I want you all to know you were wrong!

You were wrong!

You were wrong!And you have know idea how much I wanted it [to be wrong] to be me.

Because of this......the MCA must be overturned by the Supreme Court as being the most un-Constitutional piece of legislation that was ever created in 200 years.

Because of this...

• The Supreme Court is no longer supreme
• We no longer have inalienable rights
• The Constitution is now "null" and "void"

...and to think people actually defended this. So I say from the bottom of my heart to those that support this bill, GTH!

Yes a citizen can be an enemy combatant but only an alien unlawful combatant can be tried by military tribunal and only an alien unlawful combatant does not retain his Habeas Corpus rights. This is no different than what I've been saying all along. A citizen and an alien can be certified as an unlawful combatant by a military tribunal and then the alien can be tried by military commission and does not retain Habeas Corpus rights but the citizen must be tried in civilian court. Your sources hysterical blustering and misinterpretations smack of bullshit and the quotes from the administration lawyer in no way match what your article says he said.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Yes a citizen can be an enemy combatant but only an alien unlawful combatant can be tried by military tribunal and only an alien unlawful combatant does not retain his Habeas Corpus rights. This is no different than what I've been saying all along. A citizen and an alien can be certified as an unlawful combatant by a military tribunal and then the alien can be tried by military commission and does not retain Habeas Corpus rights but the citizen must be tried in civilian court. Your sources hysterical blustering and misinterpretations smack of bullshit and the quotes from the administration lawyer in no way match what your article says he said.

And as I stated before, there is no mechanism in the MCA that would force the tribunal or commission into giving an accused citizen a court date. They can postpone and continue the case indefinately and there's not a god-damn thing the accused citizen can do about it. He has no right to a speedy trial. No arraignment within 45 days. If he (or his lawyer) cannot get into court, they cannot motion for habeas corpus.

Furthermore, as I stated before, we now have a two-tier judicial system which is un-Constitutional. Bush got his monarchy. And since we are in a perpetual state of war, with no way to predict and ending, America (as we once knew it) is gone. We are now a tolitarian state.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And as I stated before, there is no mechanism in the MCA that would force the tribunal or commission into giving an accused citizen a court date. They can postpone and continue the case indefinately and there's not a god-damn thing the accused citizen can do about it. He has no right to a speedy trial. No arraignment within 45 days. If he (or his lawyer) cannot get into court, they cannot motion for habeas corpus.

Don't you ever get tired of spouting the same lies? Citizens still retain all of their rights even if found to be unlawful combatants. It's been proven unconditionally and every major media outlet and every legal scholar agrees, but perhaps Billo and "consortium news," are smarter than the rest of the country. :roll: Even the person your source is siting has had Habeas Corpus. Your source is bullshit and you're FOS.

Furthermore, as I stated before, we now have a two-tier judicial system which is un-Constitutional. Bush got his monarchy. And since we are in a perpetual state of war, with no way to predict and ending, America (as we once knew it) is gone. We are now a tolitarian state.

You are so full of sh!t we have always had a military system of justice and a civilian system of justice, this is nothing different.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Don't you ever get tired of spouting the same lies? Citizens still retain all of their rights even if found to be unlawful combatants. It's been proven unconditionally and every major media outlet and every legal scholar agrees, but perhaps Billo and "consortium news," are smarter than the rest of the country. Even the person your source is siting has had Habeas Corpus. Your source is bullshit and you're FOS.

Let's see your sources. Post'em!

Originally posted by TOT:
You are so full of sh!t we have always had a military system of justice and a civilian system of justice, this is nothing different.

It says right in the MCA no court has jurisdiction over these tribunals. The Constitution says there shall be only one Supreme Court. Not two!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Let's see your sources. Post'em!

Cato-at-liberty » Does the Military Commission Act Apply to U.S. Citizens?

Q & A: Military Commissions Act of 2006: Military Commissions

Habeas Corpus: Working on Commissions - Couric & Co.

Andrew C. McCarthy on Alien Enemy Combatants on National Review Online=

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

JURIST - Forum: The Military Commissions Act: Congress Commits to the War on Terror

It says right in the MCA no court has jurisdiction over these tribunals. The Constitution says there shall be only one Supreme Court. Not two!

You need to read the Constitution more carefully buddy, the SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction in these cases and it is the Congress which determines the Appelate Jurisdiction of the SCOTUS:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

[Feela]

Don't you ever get tired of spouting the same lies?

Don't you ever get tired of hypocrisy? You call yourself a "libertarian" ie someone who wants to maximise individual liberty and yet here you are defending these proceedings.
I love the american style "libertarians" (even if they stole our word.), they never fail to prove the true extent of hypocrisy the right will go to.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Don't you ever get tired of hypocrisy? You call yourself a "libertarian" ie someone who wants to maximise individual liberty and yet here you are defending these proceedings.
I love the american style "libertarians" (even if they stole our word.), they never fail to prove the true extent of hypocrisy the right will go to.

Umm, Billo is a lier and it has been proven, he has been spreading the same lies all over this board since the MCA was written into law.

 

[Feela]

Umm, Billo is a lier and it has been proven, he has been spreading the same lies all over this board since the MCA was written into law.

And you are a hypocrit and blatant statist.
So as the saying goes remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from yours.
At least he has the right motives underneath even if he is incorrect.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And you are a hypocrit and blatant statist.
So as the saying goes remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from yours.
At least he has the right motives underneath even if he is incorrect.

lmfao, umm no there are certain legitimat functions of the state first and formost of which is to provide security and defense for the citizenry. The most important liberty is the natural right to life.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Feela
And you are a hypocrit and blatant statist.
So as the saying goes remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from yours.
At least he has the right motives underneath even if he is incorrect.

Thank you, Feela. I would like to request that if you think I am incorrect regarding the MCA, please let me know. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If not, we can discuss it.

Now, on to the one we call TOT...

Looking at your first source, I had the initial feeling that you just posted up a bunch of stuff to give the illusion you had done your homework...

From TOT's cato source:
My conclusion: A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.

This is absolutely false. The following section in the MCA states very clearly who can be tried...

Sec. 950v. Crimes triable by military commissions

`(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

...who else but a citizen would have an "allegiance to the US"?

As far as your next source, the particular webpage you were using doesn't address the section that would include US citizens. However, I couldn't help but notice this little item from YOUR source...

From TOT's Human Rights source:

12. Do these court-stripping provisions violate international law?

Yes. International law requires that persons subjected to human rights violations have a right to an effective remedy. The United States has ratified – and is therefore obligated to comply with – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). These multinational treaties require that detainees have access to independent courts to challenge the legality of their detention and to raise and seek redress for torture and other abuse.

...which made me think about your own hypocrisy using a source sympathetic to international law in this debate, then you do a 180 and blow off international law when it comes to the illegality of the war in Iraq. You didn't realize this source considers the Iraq war illegal, did ya?

Now on to your Katie source. I noticed that all your offering with these links are just commentary. How about a lawyer? Someone who is an expert in litigation. Or an organization that defends peoples civil rights. These people are the experts in this field.

But there was something in your Katie source that caught my eye. That is when this guy named Brad, logged on to Att. Gen. Gonzales political forum and asked him a very basic question that I have asked you many times, and he got the same response I did.

From TOT's Couric source:
“Brad from San Jose,” for example, started his question to Gonzales this way: “I am concerned about the potential for abuse of the new rules. What legal recourse does an innocent suspect have under the new legislation?” Gonzales wisely did not answer the question.

You and Alberto both dogged the question and couldn't answer it.

I didn't have to get far in your opinion-journal source before I saw something that corroborated what I've been telling you, that we now have a two-tier judicial system where it is claimed the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over these tribunals.

From TOT's opinion-journal source:
The new law is, above all, a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court. It strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear any habeas corpus claim filed by any alien enemy combatant anywhere in the world.

Thanks for posting stuff that proves I'm right and your wrong. You need to read these articles more closely before trying to post the in my face.

Your next guy was a typical prick! A White House bitch! His whole article was a fluff piece. An advertisement for the MCA. What a dick! But he did provide some corroborative evidence regarding the use of coercive testimony be admitted as evidence.

From TOT's right-wing a.s.s.hole source:
While the MCA correctly excludes all statements obtained by use of torture, the MCA also tackles the hard question of statements taken from an illegal enemy combatant where a “degree of coercion is disputed.” Such statements may be admissible under strict guidelines depending on when they were obtained.

There is no way you can have due process of law when you allow the preceding.

Now on to your summary...

Originally posted by TOT:
You need to read the Constitution more carefully buddy, the SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction in these cases and it is the Congress which determines the Appelate Jurisdiction of the SCOTUS:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

I did read the Constitution, several times, and it clearly says (without abbrogation) that there shall be only one Supreme Court. And that court which is Supreme, has jurisdiction over all other courts. Period. Anything else is un-Constitutional.

My initial hunch was right...

 

[Feela]

lmfao, umm no there are certain legitimat functions of the state first and formost of which is to provide security and defense for the citizenry. The most important liberty is the natural right to life.

That is certainly disputable(the part about the state guarding this right.), but how the hell ,as a supposed libertarian ie someone who wants to maximise individual liberty, can you defend these tribunals or any of the measures taken by Bush?
Common sense and certainly libertarian prinicples dictate that these measures are injurous to inidividual liberty.

And btw you realise this war on terror stuff is bs right? The threat from a few arabs living in pakistani caves is not worth these measures. You are not one of those people who actually feels Osamo bin Laden will destory western civilisation are you?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Looking at your first source, I had the initial feeling that you just posted up a bunch of stuff to give the illusion you had done your homework... This is absolutely false. The following section in the MCA states very clearly who can be tried......who else but a citizen would have an "allegiance to the US"?

Repeating the same lies a dozen times doesn't make them true. The MCA states quite clearly in plane English not subject to interpretation that it only applies to Alien Unlawful Combatants:

‘‘§

948b. Military commissions generally​

‘‘​

(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing​

the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants

engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations

of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission​

‘‘§ ​

​

948c. Persons subject to military commissions​

‘‘​

Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by​

military commission under this chapter.

S. 3930



—4
​

‘‘§ ​

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.​

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) I​

​

N GENERAL.—Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code,​

is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section

S. 3930



—37

1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109



–148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection

(e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law

109​

–163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection

(e):

‘‘​

(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to

hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed

by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
has been determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
‘‘​

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section

1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801

note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear
or consider any other action against the United States or its agents
relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial,
or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained
by the United States and has been determined by the United
States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant
or is awaiting such determination.​

’’.

(b) E



FFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)

shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and

shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect
of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention
of an alien detained by the United States since September 11,
2001.​

​

As far as your next source, the particular webpage you were using doesn't address the section that would include US citizens.
​

​

Umm it states quite clearly who can be tried by military commission:​

3. Who can be tried by a military commission? ​

Any non-U.S. citizen – even a green card holder who has lived in the United States for decades – who is determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant” can be tried by a military commission. (See section on enemy combatant definition).​

However, I couldn't help but notice this little item from YOUR source......which made me think about your own hypocrisy using a source sympathetic to international law in this debate, then you do a 180 and blow off international law when it comes to the illegality of the war in Iraq. You didn't realize this source considers the Iraq war illegal, did ya?

A) The war isn't illegal no matter how many times you repeat the same lies.

B) They have the right to a regularly constituted court and once the MCA was passed by Congress the military commissions became regularly constituted courts in full compliance with Article 3 of the 4th Geneva Conventions.​

Now on to your summary...I did read the Constitution, several times, and it clearly says (without abbrogation) that there shall be only one Supreme Court. And that court which is Supreme, has jurisdiction over all other courts. Period. Anything else is un-Constitutional.​

My initial hunch was right...​

You don't know jackshit about the Constitution or the SCOTUS the SCOTUS only has Original jurisdiction in certain cases as stated by Article 3 of the Constitution it's appelate jurisdiction is decided by the Congress what part about the following excerpt from Article 3 do you not comprehend?

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. ​

It's self explanatory Billo the MCA denies the SCOTUS appelate jurisdiction in these cases which is fully within the right of Congress to do as per the Constitution, or perhaps you just don't understand the difference between original and appelate jurisdiction.​

​

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Now on to your Katie source. I noticed that all your offering with these links are just commentary. How about a lawyer? Someone who is an expert in litigation. Or an organization that defends peoples civil rights. These people are the experts in this field.

But there was something in your Katie source that caught my eye. That is when this guy named Brad, logged on to Att. Gen. Gonzales political forum and asked him a very basic question that I have asked you many times, and he got the same response I did. You and Alberto both dogged the question and couldn't answer it.

I will not dodge the question it is answered in the National Review article IE they have ways to challenge the legality of their detention in Federal Court through means other than Habeas Corpus hearings:

AL QAEDA TERRORISTS DO GET TO CHALLENGE THEIR DETENTION
But let’s ignore that the critics are wrong about the entitlement of al Qaeda terrorists to constitutional or treaty-based rights to habeas. There is an even more gaping hole in their attack on the new law. Congress has already given al Qaeda detainees the very rights the critics claim have been denied.

Last December, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It requires that the military must grant each detainee a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at which to challenge his detention. Assuming the military’s CSRT process determines he is properly detained, the detainee then has a right to appeal to our civilian-justice system — specifically, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And if that appeal is unsuccessful, the terrorist may also seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court.

This was a revolutionary innovation. As we’ve seen, Rasul did not (and could not) require Congress to allow enemy combatants access to the federal courts. Congress could lawfully have responded to Rasul by amending the habeas statute to make clear that al Qaeda terrorists have no more right to petition our courts in wartime than any other enemy prisoners have had in the preceding two-plus centuries. Instead, Congress responded by giving the enemy what are in every meaningful way habeas rights.

For the enemy combatants, habeas corpus, to borrow the Times’s articulation, is simply a “right to challenge their imprisonment” in federal court. So what does the DTA do? It allows a detainee who has been found by the military to be properly held as an enemy combatant to challenge his incarceration in federal court. Under DTA section 1005(e)(2), that court (the D.C. Circuit) is expressly empowered to determine whether the detention is in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States — which, of course, include treaties to whatever extent they may create individual rights.

Thus, the DTA has already granted to our enemies the very remedy critics claim is now being denied. Moreover, the new Military Commissions Act (MCA) does not repeal the DTA. It strengthens it. That is, because the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision created confusion about whether the DTA was meant to apply retroactively to the 400-plus habeas petitions that were already filed, the MCA clarifies that all detainees who wish to challenge their imprisonment must follow the DTA procedure for doing so. But, importantly, the right to challenge imprisonment is itself reaffirmed.

That the DTA does not refer to this right as habeas corpus is irrelevant. It’s not the name of the remedy that counts; it’s the substance. The DTA gives the detainee exactly what habeas provides. Therefore, it would have been pointless for the MCA to add yet another round of habeas.

To understand why this is so, one need only consider the legal restrictions on imprisoned American citizens. If they wish to claim their detention is baseless, they are not permitted to file habeas petitions which simply re-allege claims they have already made (or at least had a fair opportunity to make) during prior legal proceedings (such as the appeal of a criminal conviction, or a previously filed habeas petition). Repetitious claims are instantly disregarded by courts as a form of procedural default known as “abuse of the writ” of habeas corpus.

Given that habeas would not be available to an American for the purpose of rehashing a previously unsuccessful challenge to his imprisonment, why on earth should we extend habeas to an alien al Qaeda terrorist so he can re-litigate under the MCA an argument against his detention that has already been heard and rejected by a federal appeals court under the DTA?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That is certainly disputable(the part about the state guarding this right.), but how the hell ,as a supposed libertarian ie someone who wants to maximise individual liberty, can you defend these tribunals or any of the measures taken by Bush?
Common sense and certainly libertarian prinicples dictate that these measures are injurous to inidividual liberty.

You don't even believe in natural rights, you're a socialist anyways so don't lecture me on individual liberty pal.

And btw you realise this war on terror stuff is bs right? The threat from a few arabs living in pakistani caves is not worth these measures. You are not one of those people who actually feels Osamo bin Laden will destory western civilisation are you?

Umm it's a global epedemic, there appx 1.5 billion Muslims world wide and only if 10% of them are radicals that is 150 million potential terrorists who are seaking to attack the United States and reestablish a Pan-Islamic caliphate under Sharia law. And I'll remind you that it only took 9 of them to kill 3000 people in one single attack and if they had access to a nuclear weapon they would not hesitate for one second to detonate it in New York or Tel Aviv.

 

[Feela]

You don't even believe in natural rights, you're a socialist anyways so don't lecture me on individual liberty pal.

I'm an anarchist and yes capitalism is also opposed to individual liberty, so only a socialist can be a real libertarian but I thought I'd ignore that for now.

Umm it's a global epedemic, there appx 1.5 billion Muslims world wide and only if 10% of them are radicals that is 150 million potential terrorists who are seaking to attack the United States and reestablish a Pan-Islamic caliphate under Sharia law. And I'll remind you that it only took 9 of them to kill 3000 people in one single attack and if they had access to a nuclear weapon they would not hesitate for one second to detonate it in New York or Tel Aviv.

But far, far less are terrorists and even less would be if it wasn't for the actions of western gov'ts.

And what the hell are you talking about a caliphate? A caliph has to be a descendent of Mohammed. You need to put your tin foil hat down for a while.

Btw I love the way you who obviously are in love with private property "rights" is also obvioulsy pro-israeli, the whole country is built on stolen land by your definition at least.
Rightwing hypocrisy strikes again.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm an anarchist and yes capitalism is also opposed to individual liberty, so only a socialist can be a real libertarian but I thought I'd ignore that for now.

How in the hell is Capitalism opposed to individual liberty?

But far, far less are terrorists and even less would be if it wasn't for the actions of western gov'ts.

Typical leftist blame the victim bullshit.

And what the hell are you talking about a caliphate? A caliph has to be a descendent of Mohammed. You need to put your tin foil hat down for a while.

This just shows that you have no idea what drives the Islamic Fascists. I'll try to use simple words that you'll understand from now on, "pan-Islamic Empire," there is that better?

Now for a little education sport:

A caliphate (Arabic خلافة) is an Islamic federal government representing the political unity of the Muslim world despite theological differences, with the head of state (caliph) as the heir of Muhammad's political, not religious, authority. From the time of Muhammad until 1923, it provided varying degrees of unity among the diverse nations that adopted Islam. The caliphate is the only form of government that has full approval in early Islamic theology, and "is the core political concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries."[1]

Caliphate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reestablishment of the Caaliphate is the goal of the radical Islamists.

Btw I love the way you who obviously are in love with private property "rights" is also obvioulsy pro-israeli, the whole country is built on stolen land by your definition at least.
Rightwing hypocrisy strikes again.

There is not nor has there ever been a state of Palestine, the mandate of Palestine which included present day Israel and present day Jordan was divided in such a way as to allow the Muslims appx. 80% of the land IE the West Bank, Gaza strip, and all of Jordan leaving the remaining 20% in the hands of the Jews, but this did not sit well with the anti-semetic Islamic Fascists who had infact allied themselves with the Nazi's during the war especially the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who had organized Waffen SS Units of Arab descent which participated in the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. It was because of this that that the five Arab nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt attacked them and why all Jews were expelled from the Arab world and had their assets siezed while in Israel the Muslims were told to stay in their homes, despite this many Arabs fled because the Arab nations promised them all the land of Israel after victory had been achieved, but unlike the Jewish refugees who were adobted by Israel the Arab world would not intigrate the Muslim refugees into their society but rather forced them into refugee camps to be used as fedayeen soldiers in a future war against Israel. Even today the descendents of those Muslims who stayed in their homes enjoy full Israeli citizenship and equal rights and make up a large % of the Israeli population, there are even Muslim members of the Knesset, but there are hardly any Jews in the Arab world, and those that there are, are treated as second class citizens known as Dhimmi's.

 

[Feela]

How in the hell is Capitalism opposed to individual liberty?

It is a classed based system created by state intervention and maintained by it.

Typical leftist blame the victim bullshit.

:rofl
Yeah the americans and the west sure are the victims in this world.

This just shows that you have no idea what drives the Islamic Fascists. I'll try to use simple words that you'll understand from now on, "pan-Islamic Empire," there is that better?

Anyone who would use the word islamo-fascists is not worth listening to, personally I'm more worried about the fascists in the whitehouse.

Now for a little education sport:



The reestablishment of the Caaliphate is the goal of the radical Islamists.

A caliph is a descendent of muhammed.

There is not nor has there ever been a state of Palestine,

So? Doesn't change the individual rights of the people who lived there.

the mandate of Palestine which included present day Israel and present day Jordan was divided in such a way as to allow the Muslims appx. 80% of the land IE the West Bank, Gaza strip, and all of Jordan leaving the remaining 20% in the hands of the Jews, but this did not sit well with the anti-semetic Islamic Fascists who had infact allied themselves with the Nazi's during the war especially the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who had organized Waffen SS Units of Arab descent which participated in the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. It was because of this that that the five Arab nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt attacked them and why all Jews were expelled from the Arab world and had their assets siezed while in Israel the Muslims were told to stay in their homes, despite this many Arabs fled because the Arab nations promised them all the land of Israel after victory had been achieved, but unlike the Jewish refugees who were adobted by Israel the Arab world would not intigrate the Muslim refugees into their society but rather forced them into refugee camps to be used as fedayeen soldiers in a future war against Israel. Even today the descendents of those Muslims who stayed in their homes enjoy full Israeli citizenship and equal rights and make up a large % of the Israeli population, there are even Muslim members of the Knesset, but there are hardly any Jews in the Arab world, and those that there are, are treated as second class citizens known as Dhimmi's.

In 1918 after mass immigration in the late 19th century the Jews were still only less than 8% of the population(certainly not 20%.), by 1948 they'd taken over the country,long live private property!

I love you fake american libertarians, you are just so fun to debunk.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It is a classed based system created by state intervention and maintained by it.

Under which the individual is free to work hard and obtain wealth and change their class. Capitalism is the only economic system condusive to individual liberty.

:rofl
Yeah the americans and the west sure are the victims in this world.

They are the victims of terrorism, and when terrorists attack us it's people like you that blame the people that are being attacked for imagined wrongs that they've done.

Anyone who would use the word islamo-fascists is not worth listening to, personally I'm more worried about the fascists in the whitehouse.

Umm the term Islamic-Fascism is not a misnomer, modern radical Islam is the direct descendent of the Third Reich, perhaps you've heard of Al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, or the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem or the organization that they founded called the Muslim Brotherhood which is the for-runner to all Arab Nationalist terrorist organizations and served as the Middle Eastern intelligence wing of the Nazi's during the war?

A caliph is a descendent of muhammed.

And a Caaliphate is a Pan-Islamic Empire which the Islamic Fascists are seeking to restore through out the Middle East by destroying every secular state in the region and replacing it with a theocratic fascist state under Sharia law.

So? Doesn't change the individual rights of the people who lived there.

A) The Muslims were told to stay in their homes those that did did not have their property stolen and they and their descendents now enjoy full Israeli citizenship and equal rights.

In 1918 after mass immigration in the late 19th century the Jews were still only less than 8% of the population(certainly not 20%.), by 1948 they'd taken over the country,long live private property!

The Jews had a higher population in the lands that were designated to become the Jewish state under the Balfour Declaration.

I love you fake american libertarians, you are just so fun to debunk.

What have you debunked exactly?

 

[Feela]

Under which the individual is free to work hard and obtain wealth and change their class. Capitalism is the only economic system condusive to individual liberty.

Capitalism is a massive state intervention, where most are kept from the means of production, it is anti-thetical to individual liberty.

They are the victims of terrorism, and when terrorists attack us it's people like you that blame the people that are being attacked for imagined wrongs that they've done.

I don't blame them, I blame the ruling classes of west and east.

Umm the term Islamic-Fascism is not a misnomer, modern radical Islam is the direct descendent of the Third Reich, perhaps you've heard of Al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, or the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem or the organization that they founded called the Muslim Brotherhood which is the for-runner to all Arab Nationalist terrorist organizations and served as the Middle Eastern intelligence wing of the Nazi's during the war?

:rofl
You need help.
And are these like the fascists that Von Mises praised in the 20s?

And a Caaliphate is a Pan-Islamic Empire which the Islamic Fascists are seeking to restore through out the Middle East by destroying every secular state in the region and replacing it with a theocratic fascist state under Sharia law.

A caliphate needs a caliph.

A) The Muslims were told to stay in their homes those that did did not have their property stolen and they and their descendents now enjoy full Israeli citizenship and equal rights.

Incorrect they were forced out of a massive scale and btw I thought to you fake libertarians that property rights were absolute ie absentee landlords are allowed.

The Jews had a higher population in the lands that were designated to become the Jewish state under the Balfour Declaration.

They were less than 8% and most of them were recent immigrants.
The Balfour declaration was made after the allies stabbed the arabs in the back and took their land after they'd helped beat the Turks.
No wonder they hate the west.

 

[Feela]

Btw the fact you style yourself after a Roman oligarch, really speaks volumes about your libertarianism.