"The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation,"
- Thread starter fdd2blk
- Start date
Big P
Well-Known Member
why do liberals lie so much i dont bother usually to check all these supposed facts but every time i do it seems i find out its all bull
this act only applies to Non-Citizens of the United States, you shouldnt believe all the lies that you hear spouted without regard, your own side is lieing to you for christs sake
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under chapter 47A — Military Commissions (of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 948a (Section 1, Subchapter I))). The definition of unlawful and lawful enemy combatant is given in Chapter 47A—Military commission: Subchapter I--General provisions: Sec. 948a. Definitions
"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-Qaida, 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." ... "The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is — (A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States; (B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or (C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."
The Act also defines an alien as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States", and a co-belligerent to mean "any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy."
.
PVS
Active Member
*sigh* i'm not going to go on an internet expedition and dig up all instances were left activist groups were put on the watch list.
fine, here's one....which never happened....because i'm a liar.
"Political author's name matches terror watch list."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/08/14/author.terror.list/index.html
*edit* oh right, my bad. "non-americans". i stand corrected.
but...um...sorry canada
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/02/02/khadr-charged.html
Big P
Well-Known Member
thats the best you can do?
so u admit you are telling lies right?
"our most basic right of habeas corpus was even rendered conditional with the military commissions act of 2006."
there is nothing rendered conditional about our most basic right of habeas corpus. Fact
I just wanted to clear it up for our readers, wouldnt want you to mislead people
PVS
Active Member
no i admitted to being mistaken on one point.
that doesn't prove that liberals are evil liars as you intend to spin this into,
as a means of discrediting anyone who disagrees with you on the topic.
not that you won't try....
CrackerJax
New Member
Everyone makes mistakes...no worries there.
Like I said....I was never worried that the patriot Act was going to infringe on my rights.
PVS....as for giving the power to the Executive branch....that's where those powers belong......where it can get down to ONE person...the President being responsible...pro or con on the outcome. If it was in the legislative branch, no one would investigate it. Congress rarely blames itself for anything. Just look at the real estate melt down.... Congress points the finger at everyone else except those truly responsible....themselves.
Like I said....I was never worried that the patriot Act was going to infringe on my rights.
PVS....as for giving the power to the Executive branch....that's where those powers belong......where it can get down to ONE person...the President being responsible...pro or con on the outcome. If it was in the legislative branch, no one would investigate it. Congress rarely blames itself for anything. Just look at the real estate melt down.... Congress points the finger at everyone else except those truly responsible....themselves.
PVS
Active Member
but what of checks and balances? the whole structure of our government was conceived to avoid this consolodation of power by one brach, let alone one man.
exactly. thats exactly why no branch of government can be left to account for themselves. to allow all that power under the protective veil of 'naional security' means that they are essentially untouchable and have zero oversight except their own. these powers do not expire at the next inauguration. this is the priviledged seat of power which was prepared for any future president, and despite all the disagreement they all seem intent on continuing to expand their power.
i would blame complete deregulation of banking starting with clinton and on with bush. again, no oversight. allow organizations of people with this much power to account for themselves and this shit is just what happens.
CrackerJax
New Member
Congress has the ability to give that power to give to the President...and they did. That was the check....and balance. The fact that the woosies in Congress fled for cover as soon as Iraq got a bit messy doesn't change their vote. It only shows they did not have the conviction to stay the course.
PVS
Active Member
your conclusion spites the very use and definition of the system/theory.
checks and balances in theory and practice can only be sustained with all 3 powers having complete oversight of each other, as with all 3 holding equal powers. its structured this way for the sole purpose of not allowing power to consolidate to one branch.
once a branch gives up their responsibility they have continued the process of rendering the legislative branch impotent. this was dereliction of duty.
congress renounced their responsibility and offered bush a blank check to start any war he pleased. their opinions after that did not matter unless it came to war funding or for yet more fear-motivated nsa powers.
Big P
Well-Known Member
yes those lethal NSA powers and to think we used to able to have huge forums online and be able to talk freely about commiting crimes and illigal activity aaaaaaaa yes those were the good ol' days
Wait what?
man the long arm of the NSA must have missed this huge black eye on law enforcment: rollitup.orgsmoke up people weez freee!!!!! freeee!!! i tells ya. go to Saudi arabia with your mom and watch them slap the shit outa her for not covering up her face
as for me i will be here openly defing the governments laws and they cant do nary a shit about it
ViVA Fidel Comrads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but wait!!!!!!!!!!!! whats this you say?????????????????????????????
August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh
- Font size
- Share
- Post a comment
- Yahoo! Buzz
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Thank you comrad Obama, perhaps I spoke too soon
.
Big P
Well-Known Member
I can and I do think its petty also, im sorry
what more choice do I have, I can only cling to my lesser enemy and once he defeats my greater enemy, that is when I can turn on my lesser enemy and destroy him
but until then I must start somewhere
you know the actual solution, your right, it was there till the feds stole it
the real solution is to have a wide varity of policies in each differnent state then one could just move to the state that suits them. but for some reason boths sides are trying to make all the states comply in thier chosen direction
im ready to start a states rights party that instead of us fighting each other we unite and fight together for each state to do as it pleases
thats when we could actually win
This tokes for you PVS
I dont care what other people do I dont wanna stop thier dreams I just dont want thier dreams to mess mine up.
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
If only you truly understood the parameters of this statement. If only.....I can and I do think its petty also, im sorry
what more choice do I have, I can only cling to my lesser enemy and once he defeats my greater enemy, that is when I can turn on my lesser enemy and destroy him
but until then I must start somewhere
you know the actual solution, your right, it was there till the feds stole it
the real solution is to have a wide varity of policies in each differnent state then one could just move to the state that suits them. but for some reason boths sides are trying to make all the states comply in thier chosen direction
im ready to start a states rights party that instead of us fighting each other we unite and fight together for each state to do as it pleases
thats when we could actually win
This tokes for you PVS
I dont care what other people do I dont wanna stop thier dreams I just dont want thier dreams to mess mine up.
NewGrowth
Well-Known Member
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Liberty? What's this term you speak of?It's called Liberty . . . .
CrackerJax
New Member
The spending freefall is caused by Congress and no one else. When it comes to security top decisions, the COMMANDER in CHIEF gets the nod. In wartime, doubly so. Being ponderous in a war will get you killed. If you wish to squabble about procedural problems, the time to do that is after the enemy is defeated.
We'll all have to wait a long time now for our enemy to be defeated. We have appeasement back in style, which will only bring escalated violence upon us down the road...it always does. Weakness invites violence. we are broadcasting our weaknesses....our enemies are paying very close attention.
We'll all have to wait a long time now for our enemy to be defeated. We have appeasement back in style, which will only bring escalated violence upon us down the road...it always does. Weakness invites violence. we are broadcasting our weaknesses....our enemies are paying very close attention.
NewGrowth
Well-Known Member
So you are saying the boogey man does exist and he is hiding under my bed right now?
OK got it, thanks for the warning
CrackerJax
New Member
The boogey man does in deed exist..... in the minds of children.
Our enemies are quite real and a cursory look at history shows that. It pays to be diligent. It pays to respond to the smaller threats before they become larger ones. This is where Clinton gets an D grade. Obama is well on his way to being another Clinton or worse (I sure hope not) in foreign policy..
Obama is not a wartime President, and yet we are now in quite a war in Afghanistan. The "good" war says Obama...... we'll see. We are at unprecedented rates of casualties in Afghan right now and the generals warned of this when Obama sent troops over there ...without a plan. He had better wake the heck up....our boys are dying over there.
natrone23
Well-Known Member
The generals asked to Obama to send more troops because Afghanistan campaign had regressed so much under GWB leadership. We have more casualties in Afg because you can't really fight in the winter(there is always more casulities in summer) look at the numbers. You send more troops there is going to be more contact with the enemy and more casualties.
Bush half assed it in Afghanistan and now Obama had to send in the Marines to finish the job
My buddy(marine spec ops) just got back from Helmand yesterday actually