Jump to content
🪐 MY UNIVERSE | COLDPLAY X BTS | OUT SEPTEMBER 14TH 🛰

Americans have just lost the right to a fair trial


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:nod:

Also, Parrotdies wasn't trying to make Saffire look bad. I don't see what was low in what Parrot posted :\

But I think this has come up several times before, eg. by Reilly. Saffire seems too fast to think that people are attacking/bullying him, when they are just giving another opinion on the matter.

Replying with something like "This is low, even for you" with which implicitly is said that Parrot apparently usually goes low (I don't agree) and that parrot's post was some kind of 'attack' towards Saffire to make him look bad .... a bit paranoid, I would say.

 

Okay, it's nice that you have these opinions. A lot of people have a low opinion of me on this forum, and I feel like I try to counterbalance that by contributing thoughtful posts and bringing interesting news stories to your attention.

 

But please read my posts carefully.

 

Notice that Parrotdies has never spoken to the content of my posts.

 

He's never responded to the simple points that I made about many journalists, reputable news sources, and even senators themselves who believe this bill is a massive infringement on Americans' civil liberties.

 

He's never explained why John McCain didn't clarify the bill to Rand Paul.

 

I think it would be fantastic news if indeed this bill didn't make it possible to send American citizens (or anyone!) off to Guantanamo Bay without a fair trial.

 

But John McCain, the co-sponsor of the bill, seems to think that it does.

 

And I trust the co-sponsor of the bill's interpretation any day over the Justice Department's interpretation. I even explained why in my previous post: the Justice Department doesn't have a very good track record on sticking up for Americans' rights or looking out for their interests. Also, in that link I posted it points out that the government already has all the prosecutorial "tools" it needs to fight terrorism. There's no need for more.

 

Parrotdies is entitled to his opinion about the contents of the bill.

 

But bills are interpretive. In fact, they are often times intentionally vague, so they can be stretched in the future. I'm sure Parrotdies, who has clearly learned to read legalese, would agree with me on this point.

 

Finally, Parrotdies didn't reveal his opinion about the bill until this most-recent post. Instead, he started by presenting what he thought was my (and a thousand other peoples') incorrect interpretation of the bill. He wasn't being constructive at all. Rather than start off attacking my position and opinion on the bill, he could have said, "I think the bill means something different, and here's why..." and then linked to some sources.

 

But I won't let this get me riled up. I'm sure Parrotdies is a very pleasant person in real life. I just vehemently disagree with him that the executive branch of our government needs even more power than it already has to prosecute terrorists. I also disagree with him about the interpretation of the bill (as does John McCain, the cosponsor of the bill, and Rand Paul, an intelligent Senator from Kentucky).

Link to post
Share on other sites
:nod:

Also, Parrotdies wasn't trying to make Saffire look bad. I don't see what was low in what Parrot posted :\

But I think this has come up several times before, eg. by Reilly. Saffire seems too fast to think that people are attacking/bullying him, when they are just giving another opinion on the matter.

Replying with something like "This is low, even for you" with which implicitly is said that Parrot apparently usually goes low (I don't agree) and that parrot's post was some kind of 'attack' towards Saffire to make him look bad .... a bit paranoid, I would say.

 

No he is clearly trying to be a pretentious ass. And not a very good one, which makes it all the more laughable.

 

I'm reading the bill now while studying for my finals. Should be interesting to go from hydrogen fusion to this and back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4) I still don't understand why you always resort to personal attacks when sometimes you might have overstated the facts. I haven't insulted you or called you names - instead, I just broke down the law for people not familiar with legalese. That way, people who want clarification about this bill can come to a better understanding.

 

Thanks for that btw, I needed it in simple terms. :awesome:

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who are willing to look at both sides of the interpretation of the bill, here's a quote from Lindsey Graham (Republican senator from South Carolina who voted for the bill):

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/02/the-terrorists-have-won/

 

“1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

 

And here's another quote from Graham:

 

Lindsey Graham said this week, boastfully: “When they say, ‘I want to talk to a lawyer,’ we tell them, ‘Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer!’”

 

So no, Reilly and Parrotdies. I don't think it's very fair of you guys to accuse me of "overstating the facts" here. Or of "fear mongering".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saffire, I strongly encourage you to provide context for your quotes. I will address each of them:

 

1) If you watch the C-SPAN videos or read the transcript, Senator Graham is talking about American citizens captured as enemy combatants in the United States, whether or not that is permitted under the AUMF - once again referring to the COVERED PERSONS in Section 1031. Right after he makes those statements you quoted, Graham gives context by talking about the Padilla case:

 

Senator Graham: "1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland. Are you familiar with the Padilla case? That is a federal court case involving an American citizen captured in the United States that was held for civil years as an enemy combatant?

 

His case went to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said an American citizen can be held by our military as an enemy combatant even if they're caught here in the United States because once you join the enemy forces, then you present a military threat and your citizenship is not a soft of a get-out-of-jail-free card. That the law of the land is an American citizen can be held as an enemy combatant. That went to the Fourth Circuit and that, as I speak, is the law of the land"

 

 

 

 

Senator Ayotte: "That's right, that is the law of the land and that's what's reflected in this authorization act."

 

 

Senator Graham : But 1032 is only for noncitizens captured in the United States"

 

 

(You can read the transcripts for yourself here so you know I'm not making this up: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428)

 

Senator Graham is correct that the law of the land states an American citizen can be held as an enemy combatant even if captured in the United States (As you may or may not know, the Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla (2004) neglected to decide on this issue).

 

 

 

 

2) Let's see the rest of Senator Graham's quote:

 

Citizens who are suspected of joining Al Qaeda are opening themselves up “to imprisonment and death,” Mr. Graham said, adding, “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’ ”

 

Once again, Senator Graham is talking about enemy combatants, or people specified under COVERED PERSONS section of the bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I don't disagree with anything you just said.

 

The problem libertarians have with this bill is who gets to decide who an "enemy combatant" is, and when this "war" ends. It's incredibly vague.

 

Also, please don't ignore that exchange between Rand Paul and John McCain - I think it's very important. I think it clearly shows that both senators have a different understanding of the bill than you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The way this bill is interpreted now doesn't matter. At some point down the road, its ambiguity will lead to its abuse, and we can all forget about that old concept known as Habeas Corpus.
holy poop it's JOSH

 

I thought you fell off the face of the earth!

Link to post
Share on other sites
What about Bradley Manning?

Weren't the initial conditions of incarcerating him already crossing lines of how to legally treat an American citizen?

 

Bradley Manning was in the military, so he basically signed away his rights when he joined. This bill affects civilians and foreigners alike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Human Rights Watch's Counterterrorism expert on the bill, and she clarifies what all the stink is about with regard to this bill. Hint: it's exactly the opposite of what Parrotdies was claiming.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN-6Bmw_UIA]"Shut Up. You Don't Get a Lawyer!": The Defense Authorization Act Guts Civil Liberties - YouTube[/ame]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hint: it's exactly the opposite of what Parrotdies was claiming.

 

Are we watching the same video? Or did you link the wrong video? ....because she just reiterated everything that I've already stated.

 

For example, at the 1:40 mark she talks about the provision (section 1032) which mandates military detention. And here's what I said about it, something you dismissed as my "weird interpretation":

 

Section 1032, as written, would mandate military detention of any non-U.S. person who is a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and has planned or carried out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners - the COVERED PERSONS defined in Section 1032(2). Worth noting here is that the President already has authority under the AUMF to authorize the military to take custody of individuals who are part of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.

 

At the 2:24 mark, she talks about the military's poor record of trying these cases. And here's what I said about the matter:

 

No, I oppose the bill because ironically, it would actually jeopardize national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against Al Qaeda. This has been a point raised by counterterrorism officials from both the Republican + Democratic parties, the Secretary of Defense, the director of the FBI, the director of national intelligence, and the attorney general (among others not listed).

 

Personal letter from the Director of National Intelligence: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010...Provisions.pdf

 

At the 3:42 mark, she talks about why the White House is threatening a veto on this bill. And here's what I said about the matter:

 

That's the real reason why the Obama administration is threatening to veto the bill: “Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto" - White House Statement

 

Now I imagine you're going to point out the 1:11 mark where she says "The terms in the bill are so vague that it can really be applied to anyone the U.S. deems is an enemy." And once again, here's the post where I quoted Senator Graham:

 

1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.... The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said an American citizen can be held by our military as an enemy combatant even if they're caught here in the United States because once you join the enemy forces, then you present a military threat and your citizenship is not a soft of a get-out-of-jail-free card. That the law of the land is an American citizen can be held as an enemy combatant. That went to the Fourth Circuit and that, as I speak, is the law of the land"
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...