Are we ready for a King?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LawDog

Staff Emeritus
Quote
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means— “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.

...and this part just jumped out at me.

Quote
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date...

Doesn't that make this an ex post facto law, and, in fact, render the whole thing unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Translation:

A person is X if he does these things. A person is also X if if he was declared X by any competent previous authorities.

Where is the ex post facto part? Previous competent tribunal negates that argument.

This quoted bit says that if Ahmed the Mildly Rabid was named a Unlawful Enemy Combatant by a "Combatant Status Review Tribunal" in 2003 that just because we changed the name of the tribunal in 2006 it don't mean that Ahmed isn't a UCE any more.

LawDog
 
O

oldbillthundercheif

Moderator
In Article 1, Section 9 of our fine document it says:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section5
This section would seem to give amnesty to folks who have committed acts that were later classified as crimes.
I searched around for references to "Previous competent tribunal" but have been unable to find this term in our founding documents or anywhere else...
Where is this term found in our legal history and what does it mean?
 
O

oldbillthundercheif

Moderator
We are not talking about American citizens fighting for a foreign power in this case but rather enemy soldiers engaged in open conflict with the US. If we are going to call this fight a "war on terror" we need to go along with the rules we have always used when fighting wars. Unless a captured enemy soldier has committed real crimes he should be held in good conditions until the conflict is resolved.

If we start locking up anyone who opposes us in this "war" we had better find a continent to turn into a gigantic prison because the world is not behind us on this one. Australia worked well for the British but where can we put the hundreds of millions of "terrorists" on this planet that we have to deal with? As far as I know we have no gargantuan colony on the other side of the planet where we can ship these punks...
 
H

Heist

Moderator
Think about what Hillary would call you and your friends when that nice Pfc. and his soldierboy buddies who came in 'just following orders' to confiscate your guns are carried out in bodybags.
 
B

Blackwater OPS

New member
Think about what Hillary would call you and your friends when that nice Pfc. and his soldierboy buddies who came in 'just following orders' to confiscate your guns are carried out in bodybags.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty arrogant remark. Most likely unless you had extensive MOUT training yourself, you would be the one leaving in a body bag. In addition, I for one would refuse such an unlawful order, and to go even further, I will be the first one to put a few rifle rounds into anyone who tries to make themselves king.
 
H

Heist

Moderator
Arrogancy is thinking that training and a uniform makes you superman. :)

Look, my point is moot- there will never be a national military and guard operated gun confiscation even though most people in the service would willingly go along with it. Too many people have been watching the news from Iraq, and too many people have rifles and access to construction sites.

Definitions can be applied to anyone and we should be vigilant to keep them from being applied to us in the future. Otherwise, America won't even blink when we are all declared domestic terrorists and action is taken for the 'safety of all'. Even malice aside- do you trust Government not to make mistakes?

And even then in that dark potential future, there will be plenty of puffed chested talking online about how we must have the 'stomach' to go through with it in order to save western civilization. :barf:
 
B

buckster

New member
That would be a sad day

I trained all my life for the day they try to do that. And so have 80,000,00 gun owners across this country. That would an unlawful order, and I will stand with any good cop or soldier who refuses to go against the Second Amendment. We just arrest the people who order it. That new law needs to be ignored, wasn't it done when Congress was out of session? A pocket veto at best.
 
N

Northern Sod Breaker

New member
Necasary evil... How can we win a war if we cannot go against are enemies. Laws? Your joking right? The enemy does not grant rights to us. Remeber these are the same people who attacked us on 9/11 (wasn't at first but it is now)
 
D

DonR101395

New member
there will never be a national military and guard operated gun confiscation even though most people in the service would willingly go along with it.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've ever been in the military, if you were, I don't think you were in the same military I am.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top