The Road to hell...

But wait, there's a little more spacedust on this law.

*blows dust hiding next chapter*

See, it clearly says
"How to serve for forty humans"
 
Petre, you really need to understand legislative/statutory construction.

What goes before, places limits on all that falls afterwards. Sec. 948c places a statutory restriction upon who is subject to the commission. Regardless of how you may want to read Sec. 950q and 950r, those persons must be alien unlawful combatants else the commission has no jurisdiction. Says so, back in 948c.
 
Must be ANY not only.

There's a big difference (WHERE'S AN ENGLISH MAJOR WHEN YOU NEED ONE!)

I can't believe this is so hard to understand.

I said what comes after only supports this.
 
Let me ask you this way Antipitas ...

IF it were written saying ....

Whatever or whichever it may be alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Would you feel so sure.

Because according to the rules and definitions of the English language , that's what it says.
 
WHERE'S AN ENGLISH MAJOR WHEN YOU NEED ONE!
Click to expand...

This is your problem. An english major isn't going to help you here because they don't know anything about statutory construction. If I start talking about things like ejusdem generis, in pari materia, and expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the english major is going to stand there with a dumb look on their face.
 
STAGE 2, don't confuse the man with latin... :D

Petre, I tried to say it in simple terms. I don't know a simpler way to phrase it.

Section 948c expressly lays out the jurisdiction of the commission. Anything that follows this must meet that jurisdictional requirement. Period. The word "Person" in sections 950q and 950r must meet the criteria laid out in 948c, as defined in 948a (et al). Such that Any person (950q and 950r) refers to any "alien unlawful enemy combatant."

All laws are constructed in this manner.
 
To Rangefinder...

Where religious extremism leads to terrorism, I'm a firm believer of complete extermination. If their religious belief is to kill everyone who doesn't see the way they do, they are a threat to all civilization everywhere. Trial? Why? To tell them they're wrong? Because it's the "right" thing to do? This isn't a civil liberties uprising against oppressive powers that they are engaging in whenever someone is attacked, bombed, and innocent people living peaceful lives in their OWN parts of the world are killed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's kill the Catholics for keeping Europe in the Dark Ages, and killing and burning anyone they labeled a "heathen". Let's also take down all Christians for destroying the civilizations of North America, South America, and every part of Asia from India and east of it. Extremism vs. extremism is like fighting fire with gasoline. Any person who twists power for their agenda will do what it takes in order to accomplish it, be it religion or politics. Who's to say that under the guise of "protecting Americans" that our benefactors don't plan to eventually turn the knife on us?

I believe that if there is an enemy combatant try them under whatever military law applies. For any American CITIZEN charged with terrorism, they deserve the rights given by the Constitution because THEY ARE CITIZENS, AND ALL CITIZENS ACCUSED OF A CRIME HAVE RIGHT TO FACE TRIAL JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON WITH CRIMINAL CHARGES!! If you make an exception for one crime then don't be surprised when they allow the death penalty for jaywalking because it might be considered a terrorist act!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:


Epyon

P.S: I know the jaywalking thing is an exaggeration, but you should understand what I'm getting at here.
 
Antipitas
Staff


Join Date: 06-29-2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 1,589
STAGE 2, don't confuse the man with latin...

Petre, I tried to say it in simple terms. I don't know a simpler way to phrase it.

Section 948c expressly lays out the jurisdiction of the commission. Anything that follows this must meet that jurisdictional requirement. Period. The word "Person" in sections 950q and 950r must meet the criteria laid out in 948c, as defined in 948a (et al). Such that Any person (950q and 950r) refers to any "alien unlawful enemy combatant."

All laws are constructed in this manner.
Click to expand...

I believe I just addressed that exact section.

948c and it's wording IS the problem.

AND I'm not alone in this interpretation of it. I even when so far as to ask an attorney friend of mine last night about this very line and the use of ANY (A diehard republican BTW who's been practicing for nearly 40 years) ... and he agreed. The use of ANY he said was reckless and could be argued to mean more than may have been intended.

So the bottom line is , as simple as some here might like to make it, it's not that simple and IS open to interpretation. And THAT is precisely what is being argued about across the country.

IF it were so cut and dried we wouldn't be having this conversation. But when a word that in the English language that means, Whatever or whichever it may be before the description of such , it does leave it open to be interpreted as , WHICHEVER OR WHATEVER .

The use of ONLY would have made the following ...
1. without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively
2. no more than; merely; just

Can you not see the huge difference in these two?

You argue that it's ONLY when in essence and fact it's ANY.

I cannot say it any simpler.

Ask a lawyer you trust their opinion as I have stated it and could it hold up in court ... and remember ...

THIS IS A CORRECT SENTENCE AS WELL.

ANY man woman child can be labeled an enemy combatant.

And lastly ... the use of ALIEN in this section (Seperated before Section C in Definitions) is being used as a NOUN not an Adjective.

So ... what we have is two NOUNS strung together according to and seperated by their own definition. ONCE AGAIN ... rather than specifically putting the two together in DEFINITION thus forcing ALIEN to be used as a Adjective ... they are SEPERATED .

Thus use of ANY in essence means WHICHEVER IT MAY BE.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(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.

<snip>

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.


And with that I am done.

The future will tell the rest of the story on this.
 
ANY man woman child can be labeled an enemy combatant.
Click to expand...


So, my friend, please explain to me how an american citizen being labeled an enemy combatant will have any effect under this bill. How are they going to get this person into the military court? How are they going to suspend habeas?

Even as an enemy combatant, a US citizen still retains their due process rights. This bill doesnt change that.
 
I don't understand this question other than to state the obvious consequences , which were the topic of this thread. :confused:

The loss of constitutional rights as described in the bill.

This bill could easily be used to squash any dissention from We the People of the United States of American.
 
Even as an enemy combatant, a US citizen still retains their due process rights. This bill doesnt change that.
Click to expand...

No ... once deemed an Unlawful Enemy Combatant , you fall under the jusrisdiction of this law and your rights are gone.
 
As I posted before ...

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.
 
No ... once deemed an Unlawful Enemy Combatant , you fall under the jusrisdiction of this law and your rights are gone.
Click to expand...


The law expressly states that the jurisdiction of the court is limited to only aliens. How are you going to get around that.


‘‘§948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions ‘‘(a) JURISDICTION.—A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.


Keeping in mind that courts only have the power that is expressly granted to them, how is a citizen going to be tried by a tribunal.
 
The use of AN does not change the meaning of it as described in 948c.

To use Antipitas' own point ...

Section 948c expressly lays out the jurisdiction of the commission. Anything that follows this must meet that jurisdictional requirement. Period.
 
Look, jurisdiction is something that is strictly construed by the courts, especially federal. If a statute or the constitution does not expressly grant an area of jurisdiction to the court, then it doesn't have it.

There is no legal scholar in America who will tell you that this court will have jurisdiction over anyone but aliens. None of the hack job profs that you cited bothered to even touch on this in their articles because they know what the answer is.

Regardless of who is an enemy combatant, the jurisdiction of the court is strictly limited to aliens. Why don't you go back and ask your lawyer friend about that and see what he says.

Furthermore, you haven't addressed the second part of this statute namely habeas.

‘‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

How are you going to get around that.
 
What does this mean?

From Section 948d
`(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
 
Huch-
I think Antipitas already answered that pretty clearly:
Section 948c expressly lays out the jurisdiction of the commission. Anything that follows this must meet that jurisdictional requirement. Period. The word "Person" in sections 950q and 950r must meet the criteria laid out in 948c, as defined in 948a (et al). Such that Any person (950q and 950r) refers to any "alien unlawful enemy combatant."

All laws are constructed in this manner.
Click to expand...
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top