Surprise! Massachusetts pushes for spanking ban

Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention.[7] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [8] CBS legal commentator Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted."[
 
I already did..........

Desh said:
Please produce some proof of this repeted claim?
Click to expand...


I worked this field...and stated what I saw and investigated...if you want a google response...sorry not your man...I did I saw...obviously you and your ilk are readers only...can't help you...you are now also classified as a 'Bimbo' along with darla and Lady T!
 
Superfreak said:
ok... that took about five seconds....

"Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter. "
Click to expand...


All you have provided is who is subject to trial by military commission. You have not provided who can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant. Let me help:

"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."
Click to expand...


Nope. No limitation there. So, you can be branded an unlawful enemy combatant. What process is due to you appears to be an open question, but you can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant and denied habeus corpus rights.
 
Superfreak said:
Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention.[7] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [8] CBS legal commentator Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted."[
Click to expand...

That is all well and good, but there is little support for the position in the law. Here is the provision dealing with habeas rights:

`(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.
Click to expand...

You can be labeled an enemy combatant even if a US citizen and if you are determined to have been properly labeled an enemy combatant you are denied the right to habeas corpus.
 
Watermark said:
People trust kind old Joe uncle a bit too much. It's obvious to be scared of strangers, that's just common sense Dano. But we train our children to accept anything from adults we know, and that just isn't right.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you and Darla are getting the interpretation of what I'm saying. All I said that touched off all this was that kids are NATURALLY wary of strangers and that that is a good thing, that doesn't mean I am saying they are 100% safe with anyone they know.

I am wary with them being around some relatives, even though I believe there is an incredibly small chance of anything happening, but they are kids and they are going to trust them naturally based on knowing them, not by me teaching them that.
It's up to parents and not kids to keep an eye on that.

The problem with SINGLE people like Darla is that they have no kids and like a lot of naive single people, they think kids can rationalize any concept you want to teach them.
 
This is so much BS!

Watermark said:
People trust kind old Joe uncle a bit too much. It's obvious to be scared of strangers, that's just common sense Dano. But we train our children to accept anything from adults we know, and that just isn't right.
Click to expand...



Normal families with normal parents...which are the majority...do teach their kids to be aware of their surroundings and to speak their minds...my kids tell me everything because I am honest, open and up front with them...the minority which y'all keep referring to are just that a minority...I feel bad that you were abused...but it is not all that prevalent in society...so quit trying to convince the world that 90% of the population are pervs...more like 10%!
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
All you have provided is who is subject to trial by military commission. You have not provided who can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant. Let me help:




Nope. No limitation there. So, you can be branded an unlawful enemy combatant. What process is due to you appears to be an open question, but you can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant and denied habeus corpus rights.
Click to expand...

NO YOU CANNOT. ONLY ALIEN unlawful combatants are denied habeus corpus rights. That is why they put the word ALIEN in there. You are correct that US citizens CAN be declared unlawful enemy combatants, but they cannot be denied habeus corpus.
 
If the crime...........

Superfreak said:
NO YOU CANNOT. ONLY ALIEN unlawful combatants are denied habeus corpus rights. That is why they put the word ALIEN in there. You are correct that US citizens CAN be declared unlawful enemy combatants, but they cannot be denied habeus corpus.
Click to expand...


was commited outside of the US they can be denied...under the traitor laws!
 
Dungheap said:
That is all well and good, but there is little support for the position in the law. Here is the provision dealing with habeas rights:



You can be labeled an enemy combatant even if a US citizen and if you are determined to have been properly labeled an enemy combatant you are denied the right to habeas corpus.
Click to expand...

Since you obviously didn't even read your own quote, let me post it for you again....

"Quote:
`(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.
 
Tiana has no kids…SF has no kids…Rob has no kids…but it was ok when they piped in because they agreed with you Dano. But I’m not qualified to pipe in because I have no kids.
Could you be anymore transparent, Dano?
And you can make all the snarky remarks you want to, but I am more informed on this particular subject than you will ever be, no matter how many kids you have.
 
Darla said:
Tiana has no kids…SF has no kids…Rob has no kids…but it was ok when they piped in because they agreed with you Dano. But I’m not qualified to pipe in because I have no kids.
Could you be anymore transparent, Dano?
And you can make all the snarky remarks you want to, but I am more informed on this particular subject than you will ever be, no matter how many kids you have.
Click to expand...
What are you informed about? You already woefully misread the significance of reading that more abuse comes from people you know, going off on me for saying that kids are wary of strangers.
As if the 2 contradict each other and as if strangers are more trustworthy than relatives.

Other than that the only information you volunteered was your convictions with emotionally equivocating spanking to abuse.
It's not abuse at all, I was spanked, I don't feel abused then or now. Keep government out of regulating it.
 
Battleborne said:
Normal families with normal parents...which are the majority...do teach their kids to be aware of their surroundings and to speak their minds...my kids tell me everything because I am honest, open and up front with them...the minority which y'all keep referring to are just that a minority...I feel bad that you were abused...but it is not all that prevalent in society...so quit trying to convince the world that 90% of the population are pervs...more like 10%!
Click to expand...

10% is a lot, BB.
 
Superfreak said:
Since you obviously didn't even read your own quote, let me post it for you again....

"Quote:
`(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.
Click to expand...


My mistake. I read too quickly.
 
Darla said:
Tiana has no kids…SF has no kids…Rob has no kids…but it was ok when they piped in because they agreed with you Dano. But I’m not qualified to pipe in because I have no kids.
Could you be anymore transparent, Dano?
And you can make all the snarky remarks you want to, but I am more informed on this particular subject than you will ever be, no matter how many kids you have.
Click to expand...

Also, Tiana and Rob were spanked (I would hazard a guess that Superfreak was too). When you and other lefties start calling spanking "abuse", you are basically saying that their parents abused them. They don't agree with that and they do so based on experience in relating it to what they see as real abuse. I'm the same.
Their position comes from experience, not from ideals, which is what makes them different from you. I just find more single people take your position because they have less exposure to kids and have forgotten what it felt like being a kid with the experiences they had then.
 
TheDanold said:
Also, Tiana and Rob were spanked (I would hazard a guess that Superfreak was too). When you and other lefties start calling spanking "abuse", you are basically saying that their parents abused them. They don't agree with that and they do so based on experience in relating it to what they see as real abuse. I'm the same.
Their position comes from experience, not from ideals, which is what makes them different from you. I just find more single people take your position because they have less exposure to kids and have forgotten what it felt like being a kid with the experiences they had then.
Click to expand...

I think it is more of a personal experience thing than a single/married with kids thing. I would venture to guess that those of us who do not have a problem with it never had a parent or teacher/principal take things too far. I am not saying that all those opposed to spankings were abused, but I would bet that most who are ok with it were not abused.

As mentioned it is a subjective grey area as to where the line is between discipline and abuse. Personal experience will be a part of where each of us draws the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top