• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens

I'm not aware of any circumstance under which it has. My point is that it could be, and could be should be enough to alarm anyone.



I'm familiar with the 14th Amendment. What point are you trying to make?




that your "wiggle room" has a block in the US constitution.
 
Very simple Dan, because facts do not support the absurd notion that the government has an interest in establishing precedent for detaining non-citizens indefinitely without conviction and nothing you have posted supports such an absurd assertion.

What?!

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.

They said that they have an interest in doing so.
 
Not legally, it isn't.

Why are you so willing to believe Obama wants so much power economically speaking, but has not the kind of power we're talking about now?




Does he want that power? I dunno, I haven't seen him move that way. Though if he did, it would be political suicide.
 
that your "wiggle room" has a block in the US constitution.

I don't see where it does. It states that if you're a natural born citizen you've got all sorts of rights and protections. It doesn't say that you can never lose your citizenship. It doesn't even restrict the circumstances under which you can lose your citizenship.
 
I don't see where it does. It states that if you're a natural born citizen you've got all sorts of rights and protections. It doesn't say that you can never lose your citizenship. It doesn't even restrict the circumstances under which you can lose your citizenship.




It says if you are born in the US you are a citizen....





can you tell me a scenario that you are thinking one could lose thier citizenship?
 
Now go ahead and read those sections.

Here you go, and it is still begging for a point:

§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States


§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.


Once again, how does this support the desperate and absurd assertion that the Government can just strip you of your citizenship, claim you are a terrorist and imprison you indefinitely Dan?

If a citizen meets any of the above, they will indeed be given their day in court and the charges will have to be proved; what does this have to do with the detainees in Guantanamo or the Patriot Act?
 
What?!



They said that they have an interest in doing so.

What part of "detainee" do you continue to NOT get? The precedent for detaining alien enemy combatant’s indefinitely has been a long established one.

The thread topic is about Obama's false campaign rhetoric about Bush's actions when he now does exactly the same thing, which happens to be LEGAL and CORRECT I might add.

So what part of the TOPIC do you not get? :rofl
 
can you tell me a scenario that you are thinking one could lose thier citizenship?

Once again, how does this support the desperate and absurd assertion that the Government can just strip you of your citizenship, claim you are a terrorist and imprison you indefinitely Dan?

If a citizen meets any of the above, they will indeed be given their day in court and the charges will have to be proved; what does this have to do with the detainees in Guantanamo or the Patriot Act?

Well, let's start with the authority the government already has.

I can think of a great many citizen's groups, talk show audiences and even militia organizations which could be made subject to a portion of the sections I have cited, if loosely interpreted. Furthermore, there are powers which the government has retained in the face of courtroom challenges which permit the government to secretly bring charges, obtain warrants, and so forth without proceedings ever seeing the light of day.

It would take a myriad of moving parts brought together in a single legal argument to first strip someone of their citizenship and then detain them indefinitely, but it can be done.



If we were to expand the argument to powers which the government could easily obtain based on past tactics, how about if they perused the authority to strip "violent" sex offenders of their citizenship and then detain them indefinitely for the safety of our children?

Possession of child pornography is classified as a violent offense, and given the way the law is worded you can be convicted under the letter of the law for viewing it on the Web even if you didn't know you were about to view child pornography. Even if the case against you is uncertain, the DA can threaten to charge you with Receipt if you insist on going to trial, effectively doubling your sentence for having the temerity to exercise your rights.

There's a +98% conviction rate for that kind of crime, and for good reason -- a lot of innocent people plead guilty to a single charge of Possession in the interest of reducing their time in prison, and those whose case sees the light of a courtroom end up faced with a jury box stacked with people who are incensed right out of the starting gate.

The government has acquired a great deal of power by playing on our fears of what a freak with proclivities for children might do to our kids. There has even been talk in New York state (of all places) about detaining convicted sex offenders in psychiatric facilities after they've served their sentence in prison.



I guess I'll never understand people who accuse the government of usurping power with one breath and then insist that they'd never do that with the next.
 
You may want to note that the three codes listed under § 1481.a.7 leave lots of wiggle-room.
Still dont see anything that gives the power for a court or anyone else to strip someone of their citizenship.
Why dont you quote the relevant text and explain how it allows this.
 
Well, let's start with the authority the government already has.

I can think of a great many citizen's groups, talk show audiences and even militia organizations which could be made subject to a portion of the sections I have cited, if loosely interpreted. Furthermore, there are powers which the government has retained in the face of courtroom challenges which permit the government to secretly bring charges, obtain warrants, and so forth without proceedings ever seeing the light of day.

It would take a myriad of moving parts brought together in a single legal argument to first strip someone of their citizenship and then detain them indefinitely, but it can be done.

If we were to expand the argument to powers which the government could easily obtain based on past tactics, how about if they perused the authority to strip "violent" sex offenders of their citizenship and then detain them indefinitely for the safety of our children?

Possession of child pornography is classified as a violent offense, and given the way the law is worded you can be convicted under the letter of the law for viewing it on the Web even if you didn't know you were about to view child pornography. Even if the case against you is uncertain, the DA can threaten to charge you with Receipt if you insist on going to trial, effectively doubling your sentence for having the temerity to exercise your rights.

There's a +98% conviction rate for that kind of crime, and for good reason -- a lot of innocent people plead guilty to a single charge of Possession in the interest of reducing their time in prison, and those whose case sees the light of a courtroom end up faced with a jury box stacked with people who are incensed right out of the starting gate.

The government has acquired a great deal of power by playing on our fears of what a freak with proclivities for children might do to our kids. There has even been talk in New York state (of all places) about detaining convicted sex offenders in psychiatric facilities after they've served their sentence in prison.

I guess I'll never understand people who accuse the government of usurping power with one breath and then insist that they'd never do that with the next.

What you continue to NOT get is that in ALL the above scenarios, the Government would have to make a CASE and gather EVIDENCE to strip a US CITIZEN of their citizenship and it would have to go to a COURT of LAW. They would have to meet the Constitutional requirements of Habeas Corpus and the persoin being acused can ask to be judged in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

The Government does not legally have the right to just break down a US CITIZENS door and arrest you for NO reason without trial and then strip you of your citizenship. NOTHING you have provided supports such a scenario and to suggest that it COULD happen requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Once again it begs the question; what does this have to do with alien enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo?
 
Once again it begs the question; what does this have to do with alien enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo?

The government is who is defines what an alien enemy combatant is, and what rights they retain.

Anything they can do to an alien enemy combatant, they can do to you. Or, to put it less specifically, anything they can do to those deemed the lowest of the low they can do to you.

All they have to do, to be able to do it to you, is make you fit the definition of the lowest of the low.

Or, for that matter, adjust the definition to include you.
 
The government is who is defines what an alien enemy combatant is, and what rights they retain.

Once again you are wrong; the conditions and circumstances are what defines an alien enemy combatant.

Anything they can do to an alien enemy combatant, they can do to you. Or, to put it less specifically, anything they can do to those deemed the lowest of the low they can do to you.

This is blatantly false; the Government cannot declare a US citizen as being an alien enemy combatant and strip them of their citizenship and incarcerate them without due process of the law.

Why do you keep pretending the two are one and the same when the FACTS do not support your absurd assertions?

All they have to do, to be able to do it to you, is make you fit the definition of the lowest of the low.

Or, for that matter, adjust the definition to include you.

No they cannot; and your attempts to suggest they can are not supported by the FACTS.

The Government can "declare" you as anything they may want, but they still have to meet the Constitutional requirements to prove their case.

:2wave:
 
If memory serves, by the by, isn't the government you're defending (in a round-about way) the same government which issued the internal memo suggesting (for all intents and purposes) tha politically active right-wingers needed to be watched because they might be terrorists?

TED,
Who would appreciate it if people who are suspicious of the government on Mondays could also muster up the energy to continue to be suspicious of the government on Tuesday.
 
Once again you are wrong; the conditions and circumstances are what defines an alien enemy combatant.

Um, no. It is the government which decides what conditions and circumstances constitute the conditions under which someone can be accused of being and treated like an alien enemy combatant.

After all, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave the government the authority to decide who an unlawful enemy combatant was. What makes you think they can't decide what defines an alien enemy combatant?

This is blatantly false; the Government cannot declare a US citizen as being an alien enemy combatant and strip them of their citizenship and incarcerate them without due process of the law.

Why do you keep pretending the two are one and the same when the FACTS do not support your absurd assertions?

They can certainly declare you an unlawful enemy combatant, which is the next best thing, and for all intents and purposes lets them lock you up someplace indefinitely, a la GITMO.

No they cannot; and your attempts to suggest they can are not supported by the FACTS.

The Government can "declare" you as anything they may want, but they still have to meet the Constitutional requirements to prove their case.

:2wave:

Wait. What Constitutional requirements?
 
If memory serves, by the by, isn't the government you're defending (in a round-about way)

Wrong again; I am hardly defending the Government, I am defending the FACTS from absurd assertions.

....the same government which issued the internal memo suggesting (for all intents and purposes) tha politically active right-wingers needed to be watched because they might be terrorists?

They can issue all the reports they want to, but none of these reports suggested that the Government would enforce those "reports" by stripping US citizens of their constitutional rights as you are desperately attempting to suggest.

If TED,
Who would appreciate it if people who are suspicious of the government on Mondays could also muster up the energy to continue to be suspicious of the government on Tuesday.

There is a HUGE distinction between "suspicious" and paranoid.

:2wave:
 
Um, no. It is the government which decides what conditions and circumstances constitute the conditions under which someone can be accused of being and treated like an alien enemy combatant.

You cannot muster one shred of evidence that the Government can declare a US citizen as being an alien enemy combatant.

After all, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave the government the authority to decide who an unlawful enemy combatant was. What makes you think they can't decide what defines an alien enemy combatant?

It did? Please provide the exact language that supports this assertion and how it would apply to a US Citizen.


They can certainly declare you an unlawful enemy combatant, which is the next best thing, and for all intents and purposes lets them lock you up someplace indefinitely, a la GITMO.

They can "declare" you anything they want, and they still would have to PROVE their case under the Constitution.

I do not understand how you lack the ability to comprehend the distinction between US citizen and ALIEN enemy combatant.

Wait. What Constitutional requirements?

It is called Habeus Corpus and applies to ALL US Citizens.

Habeas corpus (pronounced /ˌheɪbiːəs ˈkɔrpəs/) (Latin: You (shall) have the body[1]) is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus[/ame]

Read and become INFORMED.

:2wave:
 
Last edited:
You cannot muster one shred of evidence that the Government can declare a US citizen as being an alien enemy combatant.



It did? Please provide the exact language that supports this assertion and how it would apply to a US Citizen.




They can "declare" you anything they want, and they still would have to PROVE their case under the Constitution.

I do not understand how you lack the ability to comprehend the distinction between US citizen and ALIEN enemy combatant.



It is called Habeus Corpus and applies to ALL US Citizens.

:2wave:

You obviously have no familiarity with the MCA of 2006 whatsoever.

If you want the Cliff's Notes version, search for it on Wikipedia.

I refuse to continue to spoon-feed you the cold hard truth when it's there for the reading.
 
Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free - Political News - FOXNews.com

So kiddies, was Bush the evil bastard the media portrayed him to be, or has Obama grown up just a bit and is facing the truth of the war on terror?

I don't think any hyperpartisan has faced the truth on the "war on terror". Obama, however, is just a standard politician and I never expected much out of him. He's maybe...maybe slightly better than Bush; but even if he is, it's not by much.
 
You obviously have no familiarity with the MCA of 2006 whatsoever.

If you want the Cliff's Notes version, search for it on Wikipedia.

I am very aware of it, and I asked the specific question: Where does it say that the Government can declare a US Citizen an alien enemy combatant and therefore strip them of their Constitutional rights?


Quote: Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan
After all, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave the government the authority to decide who an unlawful enemy combatant was. What makes you think they can't decide what defines an alien enemy combatant?


I do understand however why you would wish to run away from the debate as your desperate efforts to defend non-existent arguments with nothing more than; “because you say it is so.”

I refuse to continue to spoon-feed you the cold hard truth when it's there for the reading.

The ONLY one being spoon fed FACTS here is ME feeding them to YOU. You have yet to provide one shred of factual evidence that supports your absurd assertions.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006]Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
I'd respond, TD, but you haven't said a single thing in the above post that I can respond to without laughing my own damn off.

Have fun.
 
I'd respond, TD, but you haven't said a single thing in the above post that I can respond to without laughing my own damn off.

Have fun.

In other wards, you have been beaten with the FACTS and realize that it would be futile to continue your uninformed desperate attempts to fabricate anything that can support your absurd assertions.

Thanks Dan, carry on, it was a pleasure to help educate you! :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom