The Military Commissions Act of '06

[scottmale24]

Something about this deosn't seem right.

(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 Military Commissions Act 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.

Read that last part again.

UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT-
a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act 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.

It boils down to "You're a threat if we say you're a threat".

Now, combine that with the September 18, 2001 Presidential Military Order. That leaves you with "We can throw your ass in jail for an unspecified amount of time without telling you why, and the only restriction is that a council we own has to agree that you're a threat.

Of course, I'm probably blowing this out of proportion. Or I may have missed something. I don't come to the Politics forum much, so I won't be too suprised when somebody hands my ass to me.

[cellardoor6]

At 10/14/06 02:07 AM, PirateMale24 wrote: Blah Blah Blah

Big deal. Who else would 'decide' whether or not people are enemy combatants? Would people have to admit to it in order to be treated as such?

[Camarohusky]

At 10/14/06 03:12 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Big deal. Who else would 'decide' whether or not people are enemy combatants? Would people have to admit to it in order to be treated as such?

Last time I checked the COMBAT in COMBATant meant that person had been involed directly in COMBAT. Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces.

Since when did standing in front a tribunal consist of active armed fighting...?

[wwwyzzerdd]

Let me get this straight.

Lets say I'm average Muhammed Shmuhammad in Iraq. I own a shop that apparently was visited by fighters. A MP comes to me, says "This guy was in your shop yesterday," and shows me some picture (apparently the guy in the picture is wanted for a car-bombing). I say I have no clue who he is or what be purchased. The MP becomes frustrated with me because he believes I'm withholding information, so now I'm arrested.

I have no formal charges brought against me, no access to a lawyer, I'm held as an enemy combatant (meaning I can be tried by a military tribunal), and my fate is completely decided by the same people to create this rule.

Yes, I do see something wrong with that.

[MortalWound]

At 10/14/06 02:07 AM, PirateMale24 wrote: (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);

They should have put mor thought into this. Now not to start anything but, wouldn't what the Nazis did to the Jews be considered unlawful? If that is the case then there are a whole lot of older generation Germans who could be in a lot of trouble. Also, who determines the law? What is right for us may be wrong for some one else who has lived on these ideas their whole life. I say if you commit a suicide bombing you deserved to die because it was unlawful and a cowardice move. They may say that it's a right of passage into the after life where you get 72 virgins.

I never like it when people call the War on Terror a war. You see, in a war, the sides are clearly defined. With terrorism, you have no clue where the line is. A kid picks up a gun and is a terrorist. I throw a brick through a window and I'm terrorizing the neighbor hood. You can't define that conflict as a war.

Note on the last part: I was just ranting on and on and couldn't stop so please ignore it if you want...

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 10/14/06 03:53 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: Yes, I do see something wrong with that.

Similarly, the Patriot Act also had a similar tone to it, that's the main reason it wasn't passed.

Sure if you trust everyone in the military tribunal is a completely ethical and honest person with all the facts, informaton and unerring truth then there would be no problem with that kind of system but... nobody is perfect, especially those with power.

[emmytee]

At 10/14/06 05:52 AM, MortalWound wrote: I say if you commit a suicide bombing you deserved to die because...................

That will be all.

[Neoptolemus]

At 10/14/06 07:11 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/14/06 03:53 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: Yes, I do see something wrong with that.

Similarly, the Patriot Act also had a similar tone to it, that's the main reason it wasn't passed.

Sure if you trust everyone in the military tribunal is a completely ethical and honest person with all the facts, informaton and unerring truth then there would be no problem with that kind of system but... nobody is perfect, especially those with power.

It'll all come down to kangeroo court. Your sentence would have been decided before you're even in the tribunal.

[scottmale24]

At 10/14/06 07:11 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: Similarly, the Patriot Act also had a similar tone to it, that's the main reason it wasn't passed.

The problem with this, though, is that the Senate did pass it. It's just waiting for GWB's apporval.