Rich Lucibella
Staff
pax-
Now I understand where you're coming from. I agree completely.
Rich
Now I understand where you're coming from. I agree completely.
Rich
The Road to hell...
- Thread starter ITEOTWAWKI
- Start date
STAGE 2 says
1. I notice you completely ignored my point before that last comment.
2. Nothing you've said thus far invalidates my point.
3. I have read no less than 4 different professional legal interpreters who all disagree with you. You claim to have legal expretise , but you cannot even properly dispute the ambiguous grammar used to define who can be charged.
Maybe instead of worrying about the Republican party , and trying to protect it from those inaccurate "liberal law professors" and other professionals in law , you should atleast admit , it could have been written much better.
As it is , it OBVIOUSLY can and is being interpreted to mean both.
THIS fact you cannot dispute.
It could have easily been written to leave no doubt. It was not. History teaches us that nothing in law or politics is done that was not done on purpose.
A little quote for you specifically Attorney Stage2
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. - Justice Louis D. Brandeis
.
1. I notice you completely ignored my point before that last comment.
2. Nothing you've said thus far invalidates my point.
3. I have read no less than 4 different professional legal interpreters who all disagree with you. You claim to have legal expretise , but you cannot even properly dispute the ambiguous grammar used to define who can be charged.
Maybe instead of worrying about the Republican party , and trying to protect it from those inaccurate "liberal law professors" and other professionals in law , you should atleast admit , it could have been written much better.
As it is , it OBVIOUSLY can and is being interpreted to mean both.
THIS fact you cannot dispute.
It could have easily been written to leave no doubt. It was not. History teaches us that nothing in law or politics is done that was not done on purpose.
A little quote for you specifically Attorney Stage2
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. - Justice Louis D. Brandeis
.
Petre,
We seem to be talking past each other so let me try a different tack.
If I say I am going to shoot every animal that belongs to group A and to group B, is an animal that is member of only group A or group B belong to the category of those animals I am going to shoot?
For the sake of our understanding each other, ignore how this might or might not apply to the law we’re talking about, just answer the question itself, and then perhaps we’ll have a common understanding from which to base our discussion.
We seem to be talking past each other so let me try a different tack.
If I say I am going to shoot every animal that belongs to group A and to group B, is an animal that is member of only group A or group B belong to the category of those animals I am going to shoot?
For the sake of our understanding each other, ignore how this might or might not apply to the law we’re talking about, just answer the question itself, and then perhaps we’ll have a common understanding from which to base our discussion.
Ahenry ... first off. It is not written as you propose so the point I understand that you are trying to make becomes moot.
As I said before ... THIS IS how it's written ...
"Any man woman child can be labeled an enemy combatant."
Gramatically speaking this sentence is correct as written. So what's wrong with it ? (Don't believe me ? Type that sentence into Microsoft Word and do a grammar check)
Now what does that sentence mean ??? Would you be looking for a MAN WOMAN CHILD BEAST? (sarcasm of course)
ANY vs ONLY ... two VERY DIFFERENT WORDS.
an‧y /ˈɛni/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification: If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick out any six you like.
2. whatever or whichever it may be
I'll say it one last time ... This bill is poorly written at best ... IMO it's on purpose.
.
As I said before ... THIS IS how it's written ...
"Any man woman child can be labeled an enemy combatant."
Gramatically speaking this sentence is correct as written. So what's wrong with it ? (Don't believe me ? Type that sentence into Microsoft Word and do a grammar check)
Now what does that sentence mean ??? Would you be looking for a MAN WOMAN CHILD BEAST? (sarcasm of course)
ANY vs ONLY ... two VERY DIFFERENT WORDS.
an‧y /ˈɛni/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification: If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick out any six you like.
2. whatever or whichever it may be
I'll say it one last time ... This bill is poorly written at best ... IMO it's on purpose.
.
Gary Conner
New member
Once again, here we go with the analogy that if something wrong is being done by a member of our political party, we simply relate it to a somewhat similar yet varying circumstance, and declare it equitable.
To my knowledge, we as civilians are citizens of the United States, and not (yet) supposed to be under Martial law, however, many forsee it coming soon should we continue allowing our Constitutional rights to be trampled.
Therefore, would it not stand to reason, just for the time being, that we should not be subject to the same type of processes utilized in Military Courts?
Trampling our rights by suspending Habeus Corpus seems to always be justified by the statement "...Lincoln did it during the civil war!"
But the declarants never point out the sad act which resulted from his decision to do so. We are not at civil war, and we are not subject to Military trials. At least we are not supposed to be.
45RackerTracker
New member
AHenry
You just said you're going to shoot all the animals in both groups, A and B.
You just said you're going to shoot all the animals in both groups, A and B.
Gary Conner
New member
Sure can't blame you for suspecting it's interpretation. Heck, you couldn't be blamed for suspecting the intent either.
Especially when it is coming from an Administration whose Chief Executive believes it Constitutional to scribble statements onto a Bill he is presented with, such as statements declaring he as Chief Executive does not accept certain portions of it and therefore does not intend to abide, yet accepts other items and signs them into law, creating his own crayon like version of a line-item veto, instead of returning the Bill to the House in which it originated, in a direct violation of the Constitution.
I join you in your concern.
You haven't made a coherent point yet. At least not one supported by any evidence. Here's my question to you. Have you actually read this document. Not some cut and paste section but the whole actual document?
Everything I have said invalidates your point. You keep dwelling on the fact that US citizens can be deemed enemy combatants. You're right. So what. US citizens can be accused of treason, acts of terrorism and a whole host of other things.
None of that matters for the purposes of this bill. None of that matters period. Show me where the constitution prohibits citizens from being deemed enemy combatants. It doesn't. Americans can be accused of anything and its kosher as long as they get their due process guarantees.
Whether an american is deemed an enemy combatant, is not the issue. The issue is whether an american will be tried in a military court or have habeas suspended. Under this bill that is simply impossible.
There is nothing ambiguous about how alien is defined. There isn't anything ambiguous about who the tribunals will have jurisdiction over. There isn't anything ambiguous about when and for who habeas can be suspended.
You are sitting here making an argument about something that has zero effect on the actual application of the law.
First off I'm not a republican. Secondly, the only thing I'm defending is the right of our government to pass blatantly constitutional legislation. Third, this could not have written better if it is intended to accomplish its purpose.
Enemy combatant is vague and rightfully so. We want to cast the widest net possible to catch these people. By virtue of exempting citizens from the effects of this legislation, we have a wide net with no worries about catching citizens.
As far as the law liberal professors go, what do you expect them to say. Probably most of the faculty at all the ivy league law schools will tell you the 2nd amendment isn't an individual right. These people have a vested interest in seeing Bush and his policies falter. They are big donors to the DNC and the liberal cause.
Most importantly however, in all of their articles, you don't see them even mention the part about the jursidiction over aliens only. The fact that the headline reads "SUSPENSION OF HABEAS" and nowhere is it mentioned that this doesn't apply to citizens shows me exactly what the purpose of the article is for. Its a scare piece plain and simple. Surely these learned faculty didn't miss that part of the bill.
As far as what? Alien is alien.
Swell. Does this mean I can send you quotes from Justice Holmes who sent people to the federal pen for protesting during a war time or pamphleteering for the socialist cause. Cute little quotes don't have any weight and are used by people who can't argue the specific issue. But since you're so stuck on quotes I kind of prefer the one that says... "what good is liberty when you're dead".
Once again Stage 2 ... you completely avoided my actual points or the use of grammar as it is in this document.
Instead I got the same diatribe from you only more verbose.
I didn't expect you to see the relevance of the quote. That would necessitate your taking a look in the mirror.
So here I leave this discussion. You can have the last word or make 10 more last words .
Continue walking by faith and have a nice day.
Instead I got the same diatribe from you only more verbose.
I didn't expect you to see the relevance of the quote. That would necessitate your taking a look in the mirror.
So here I leave this discussion. You can have the last word or make 10 more last words .
Continue walking by faith and have a nice day.
I walk on faith as well as experience and intelligence. Judging by your posts I'm going to wager you are a layperson where the law in concerned. I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand the construction and interpretation of legislation any more than I should expect sarah brady to understand how a gas operated firearm works.
Your argument is the logical equivalent of the maginot line. It addresses a single specific point, but misses the larger argument. Even the most heinous politician cannot alter the definition of alien and thus can't enlarge the jurisdiction or application of this statue.
As far as the quote goes, stand before a judge in a courtroom, wax eloquence and see how impressed he is. Catchy phrases or diatribes by those long since dead have no bearing on factual discussions. There's a reason why we have a logical facllacy for appealing to emotion. Thats all they are.
45RackerTracker,
I beg to differ sir,
Logically (Boolean, look it up) the “and” operator dictates that the statement only applies to members of both groups. It’s not open to interpretation or anything. The Venn diagram for a statement with “and” operators would be like the attached picture.
Edited to add
It would probably help if I actually attached the image...
I beg to differ sir,
Logically (Boolean, look it up) the “and” operator dictates that the statement only applies to members of both groups. It’s not open to interpretation or anything. The Venn diagram for a statement with “and” operators would be like the attached picture.
Edited to add
It would probably help if I actually attached the image...
Attachments
Last edited:
Petre,
I realize we’re digressing a bit from the law we’re really trying to discuss, but I’m doing this because I think if we can establish some sort of foundation of understanding we have a shot of at least understanding each other. We aren’t ever going to get anywhere with this discussion if we can’t even figure out what the other is saying. If you could humor me a bit and answer my question I would appreciate it.
I realize we’re digressing a bit from the law we’re really trying to discuss, but I’m doing this because I think if we can establish some sort of foundation of understanding we have a shot of at least understanding each other. We aren’t ever going to get anywhere with this discussion if we can’t even figure out what the other is saying. If you could humor me a bit and answer my question I would appreciate it.
You might as well give up, Stage.
The plain language of the statute is being ignored. And even if the language is not plain (which it is), certain members of the Court will look to Congressional intent to interpret the statute; my guess (and I'll admit it is a guess) is that Congress intended to apply the suspension of Hab. Corpus -- and the jusisdiction of tribunals -- to aliens (once again, the plain language of the definition of "alien" is being ignored), not to American citizens.
What we are hearing are complaints about what might happen someday in the future based on the violation of non-existent Constitutional Rights, and/or arguments based on morality and/or foreign policy rather than the violation of actual rights per the United States Constitution.
Sorry folks, Stage is right about the legal effect of the statute.
The plain language of the statute is being ignored. And even if the language is not plain (which it is), certain members of the Court will look to Congressional intent to interpret the statute; my guess (and I'll admit it is a guess) is that Congress intended to apply the suspension of Hab. Corpus -- and the jusisdiction of tribunals -- to aliens (once again, the plain language of the definition of "alien" is being ignored), not to American citizens.
What we are hearing are complaints about what might happen someday in the future based on the violation of non-existent Constitutional Rights, and/or arguments based on morality and/or foreign policy rather than the violation of actual rights per the United States Constitution.
Sorry folks, Stage is right about the legal effect of the statute.
Last edited:
I think where people are getting hung up is this definition:
Having read the entire law, there is no way a citizen, such as Padilla, can now be held to a military tribunal or commission. And that has been my entire beef with the administration before this.
I will also say, that the law is well thought out and adheres to what the SCOTUS has said in both Hamdi and Hamdan.
But what do I know? I'm just a layperson!
without understanding the context of this:
"Alien" was defined in 948a(3) and "alien unlawful enemy combatant" was defined in 948b(a) as a general provision.
Having read the entire law, there is no way a citizen, such as Padilla, can now be held to a military tribunal or commission. And that has been my entire beef with the administration before this.
I will also say, that the law is well thought out and adheres to what the SCOTUS has said in both Hamdi and Hamdan.
But what do I know? I'm just a layperson!
Has anybody pointed out that the National Lawyers Guild is a group dedicated to the destruction of the US as a representative democracy and instituting a Stalinist style government? No wonder they fear this type of legislation. As to liberal lawyers intent does the 28 MONTH sentence of the Blind Sheiks lawyer for trying to assist the first towers attacker with furthering the killing of Americans not put some of you critics off? (Her defense was paid for by George Soros by the way....:barf: )
Or is lala land Soooooooo inviting?
Or is lala land Soooooooo inviting?
Antipas ... I would not be disputing this had it said ...
ONLY an alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
The use of only makes it limiting and conclusive.
ANY once again by definition , changes the meaning.
-------------------------------------------------------
an‧y /ˈɛni/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
2. whatever or whichever it may be
--------------------------------------------------------
Please replace ANY with the above ...
Whatever or whichever it may be , alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
This seprates and distiguishes it to mean in any context that it can be put together.
Further in the law that no one has read , it states :
Sec. 950q. Principals
`Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who-- (NOT ANY ALIEN ... ANY PERSON , PERIOD)
`(1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission;
`(2) causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him would be punishable by this chapter; or
`(3) is a superior commander who, with regard to acts punishable under this chapter, knew, had reason to know, or should have known, that a subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and who failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof.
`Sec. 950r. Accessory after the fact
`Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.
THIS SECTION make it very clear it does not apply only to ALIENS.
Thus ANY is in fact used properly to suggest it can in fact be either.