Sorry to go off topic but this is too important, IMHO.
Non-US military personnel now have more rights than US citizens! This is the ultimate slap in the face by our government. Every soldier who has ever "fought the enemy for our freedoms" has been betrayed in a way that can hardly be described in words:
As I'm sure everyone is aware, according to the new American law HR 6166, the United States can call virtually anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant" and detain them indefinitely and/or kill them.
Jeff Rense and Alex Jones discussing HR 6166: http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.ph...47603517579577
Please read HR 6166: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...6166eh.txt.pdf
I've studied the law and it says in Section 948d part b: "Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants."
It turns out that to be exempt from HR 6166 (i.e. to be called a lawful enemy combatant and thus have any rights at all), you must be:
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer
corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a
fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force
who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
Section 948d part b (in full): "Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant FOR ANY OFFENSE MADE PUNISHABLE BY THIS CHAPTER."
You can read the nice, humane, chapter 47 here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/ch47.html
Meanwhile, EVERYONE (in the world) except non-US military personnel is subject to being detained, tortured, and/or killed for ANY REASON. According to HR 6166, you are presumed guilty when you are charged. You will get a trial, but, even if you're found innocent they can continue to detain you indefinitely.
Compare THAT to good old chapter 47:
(c) Before a vote is taken on the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them—
(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;
(2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;
(3) that, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and
(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the United States.
Therefore, non-US military personnel have FAR FAR more rights (I've only scratched the surface here) than American citizens now.
My grandfather "fought for freedom" in World War 2, there are thousands of American soldiers "fighting for freedom" today. We must inform every US soldier about this, IT MAKES EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE DOING THE BIGGEST FARCE IN THE WORLD.
I've tried to understand why non-US soldiers have been chosen to be the only people in the world to have any rights. I can see an obvious reason why they did this. Can you imagine if it were legal for the USA to just detain and kill off any other country's standing army? The rest of the world would be forced to take action to protect itself, to protect their people against aggression by the USA. Otherwise, every other nation on the planet would be in the exact same situation that all of us individuals are in: no rights and no way to protect themselves.
Another key point about this is that governments look at their military people like chattel property. The government literally owns military people and I'm sure that this has something to do with all this. A government wouldn't be too happy about another government just taking its property any time it felt like it. Of course, a lot of governments look at all their citizens as their chattel property, so wouldn't they care of any of them were stolen away in the way that HR 6166 allows for? Any thoughts on this?
Related articles:
Non-US military personnel now have more rights than US citizens! This is the ultimate slap in the face by our government. Every soldier who has ever "fought the enemy for our freedoms" has been betrayed in a way that can hardly be described in words:
As I'm sure everyone is aware, according to the new American law HR 6166, the United States can call virtually anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant" and detain them indefinitely and/or kill them.
Jeff Rense and Alex Jones discussing HR 6166: http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.ph...47603517579577
Please read HR 6166: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...6166eh.txt.pdf
I've studied the law and it says in Section 948d part b: "Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants."
It turns out that to be exempt from HR 6166 (i.e. to be called a lawful enemy combatant and thus have any rights at all), you must be:
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer
corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a
fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force
who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
Section 948d part b (in full): "Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant FOR ANY OFFENSE MADE PUNISHABLE BY THIS CHAPTER."
You can read the nice, humane, chapter 47 here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/ch47.html
Meanwhile, EVERYONE (in the world) except non-US military personnel is subject to being detained, tortured, and/or killed for ANY REASON. According to HR 6166, you are presumed guilty when you are charged. You will get a trial, but, even if you're found innocent they can continue to detain you indefinitely.
Compare THAT to good old chapter 47:
(c) Before a vote is taken on the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them—
(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;
(2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;
(3) that, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and
(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the United States.
Therefore, non-US military personnel have FAR FAR more rights (I've only scratched the surface here) than American citizens now.
My grandfather "fought for freedom" in World War 2, there are thousands of American soldiers "fighting for freedom" today. We must inform every US soldier about this, IT MAKES EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE DOING THE BIGGEST FARCE IN THE WORLD.
I've tried to understand why non-US soldiers have been chosen to be the only people in the world to have any rights. I can see an obvious reason why they did this. Can you imagine if it were legal for the USA to just detain and kill off any other country's standing army? The rest of the world would be forced to take action to protect itself, to protect their people against aggression by the USA. Otherwise, every other nation on the planet would be in the exact same situation that all of us individuals are in: no rights and no way to protect themselves.
Another key point about this is that governments look at their military people like chattel property. The government literally owns military people and I'm sure that this has something to do with all this. A government wouldn't be too happy about another government just taking its property any time it felt like it. Of course, a lot of governments look at all their citizens as their chattel property, so wouldn't they care of any of them were stolen away in the way that HR 6166 allows for? Any thoughts on this?
Related articles:
