- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18
I'm not aware of any circumstance under which it has. My point is that it could be, and could be should be enough to alarm anyone.
I'm familiar with the 14th Amendment. What point are you trying to make?
Very simple Dan, because facts do not support the absurd notion that the government has an interest in establishing precedent for detaining non-citizens indefinitely without conviction and nothing you have posted supports such an absurd assertion.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.
Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.
Not legally, it isn't.
Why are you so willing to believe Obama wants so much power economically speaking, but has not the kind of power we're talking about now?
that your "wiggle room" has a block in the US constitution.
Does he want that power? I dunno, I haven't seen him move that way. Though if he did, it would be political suicide.
I don't see where it does. It states that if you're a natural born citizen you've got all sorts of rights and protections. It doesn't say that you can never lose your citizenship. It doesn't even restrict the circumstances under which you can lose your citizenship.
Now go ahead and read those sections.
What?!
They said that they have an interest in doing so.
It's called humor.Why do you make such childish hyperbolic comments?
It's called humor.
can you tell me a scenario that you are thinking one could lose thier citizenship?
Once again, how does this support the desperate and absurd assertion that the Government can just strip you of your citizenship, claim you are a terrorist and imprison you indefinitely Dan?
If a citizen meets any of the above, they will indeed be given their day in court and the charges will have to be proved; what does this have to do with the detainees in Guantanamo or the Patriot Act?
Still dont see anything that gives the power for a court or anyone else to strip someone of their citizenship.You may want to note that the three codes listed under § 1481.a.7 leave lots of wiggle-room.
Well, let's start with the authority the government already has.
I can think of a great many citizen's groups, talk show audiences and even militia organizations which could be made subject to a portion of the sections I have cited, if loosely interpreted. Furthermore, there are powers which the government has retained in the face of courtroom challenges which permit the government to secretly bring charges, obtain warrants, and so forth without proceedings ever seeing the light of day.
It would take a myriad of moving parts brought together in a single legal argument to first strip someone of their citizenship and then detain them indefinitely, but it can be done.
If we were to expand the argument to powers which the government could easily obtain based on past tactics, how about if they perused the authority to strip "violent" sex offenders of their citizenship and then detain them indefinitely for the safety of our children?
Possession of child pornography is classified as a violent offense, and given the way the law is worded you can be convicted under the letter of the law for viewing it on the Web even if you didn't know you were about to view child pornography. Even if the case against you is uncertain, the DA can threaten to charge you with Receipt if you insist on going to trial, effectively doubling your sentence for having the temerity to exercise your rights.
There's a +98% conviction rate for that kind of crime, and for good reason -- a lot of innocent people plead guilty to a single charge of Possession in the interest of reducing their time in prison, and those whose case sees the light of a courtroom end up faced with a jury box stacked with people who are incensed right out of the starting gate.
The government has acquired a great deal of power by playing on our fears of what a freak with proclivities for children might do to our kids. There has even been talk in New York state (of all places) about detaining convicted sex offenders in psychiatric facilities after they've served their sentence in prison.
I guess I'll never understand people who accuse the government of usurping power with one breath and then insist that they'd never do that with the next.
Once again it begs the question; what does this have to do with alien enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo?
The government is who is defines what an alien enemy combatant is, and what rights they retain.
Anything they can do to an alien enemy combatant, they can do to you. Or, to put it less specifically, anything they can do to those deemed the lowest of the low they can do to you.
All they have to do, to be able to do it to you, is make you fit the definition of the lowest of the low.
Or, for that matter, adjust the definition to include you.
Once again you are wrong; the conditions and circumstances are what defines an alien enemy combatant.
This is blatantly false; the Government cannot declare a US citizen as being an alien enemy combatant and strip them of their citizenship and incarcerate them without due process of the law.
Why do you keep pretending the two are one and the same when the FACTS do not support your absurd assertions?
No they cannot; and your attempts to suggest they can are not supported by the FACTS.
The Government can "declare" you as anything they may want, but they still have to meet the Constitutional requirements to prove their case.
:2wave:
If memory serves, by the by, isn't the government you're defending (in a round-about way)
....the same government which issued the internal memo suggesting (for all intents and purposes) tha politically active right-wingers needed to be watched because they might be terrorists?
If TED,
Who would appreciate it if people who are suspicious of the government on Mondays could also muster up the energy to continue to be suspicious of the government on Tuesday.
Um, no. It is the government which decides what conditions and circumstances constitute the conditions under which someone can be accused of being and treated like an alien enemy combatant.
After all, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave the government the authority to decide who an unlawful enemy combatant was. What makes you think they can't decide what defines an alien enemy combatant?
They can certainly declare you an unlawful enemy combatant, which is the next best thing, and for all intents and purposes lets them lock you up someplace indefinitely, a la GITMO.
Wait. What Constitutional requirements?
You cannot muster one shred of evidence that the Government can declare a US citizen as being an alien enemy combatant.
It did? Please provide the exact language that supports this assertion and how it would apply to a US Citizen.
They can "declare" you anything they want, and they still would have to PROVE their case under the Constitution.
I do not understand how you lack the ability to comprehend the distinction between US citizen and ALIEN enemy combatant.
It is called Habeus Corpus and applies to ALL US Citizens.
:2wave:
Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free - Political News - FOXNews.com
So kiddies, was Bush the evil bastard the media portrayed him to be, or has Obama grown up just a bit and is facing the truth of the war on terror?
You obviously have no familiarity with the MCA of 2006 whatsoever.
If you want the Cliff's Notes version, search for it on Wikipedia.
I refuse to continue to spoon-feed you the cold hard truth when it's there for the reading.
I'd respond, TD, but you haven't said a single thing in the above post that I can respond to without laughing my own damn off.
Have fun.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?