Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am happy this is in talks and see no way whatsoever this could get abused. This definitely gives additional needed power that was not sufficiently replicated by any other legislature. We are not in perpetual times of war. With any luck, this will allow us to stop every terrorist act before they have a chance to occur. In fact, if it even stops one terrorist act, it will be worth it, no matter how many innocents are negatively impacted in the process.

Jihadin wrote:Drug sales is a major part of the Taliban fund raising.

Opium from the Golden Triangle is used to finance themselves.

Nitpicking here-- that doesn't mean that someone using drugs purchased them from anything related to there. More local producers (IE on the same continent) have a far bigger presence, and are a far bigger problem that we need to deal with sooner....

daedalus wrote:I am happy this is in talks and see no way whatsoever this could get abused. This definitely gives additional needed power that was not sufficiently replicated by any other legislature. We are not in perpetual times of war. With any luck, this will allow us to stop every terrorist act before they have a chance to occur. In fact, if it even stops one terrorist act, it will be worth it, no matter how many innocents are negatively impacted in the process.

Did you steal that from Colbert?

Nitpicking here-- that doesn't mean that someone using drugs purchased them from anything related to there. More local producers (IE on the same continent) have a far bigger presence, and are a far bigger problem that we need to deal with sooner....

Seriously not a nit pick. Its fact. Impeding the flow of opium hinders Taliban on a cash source. Its in the specific region of the area they have influence in. If there's a direct connect of a opium purchase from Afghanistan then those individuals are financing the Taliban/Al Queda.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

That falls under 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVQnbNspHsk

So this video is wrong?

Jihadin wrote:If there's a direct connect of a opium purchase from Afghanistan then those individuals are financing the Taliban/Al Queda.

... which is my point.

There usually isn't one, as most drugs consumed in the US are not produced in Asia. They're produced in the American continents.

Aahhh so your saying the military will abuse their power and detain everyone suspected/used/sell/distribute drugs as a terorist?

... no. WTF are you reading?

Might want to read the entire thread and see how this went down

Easy E wrote:

daedalus wrote:I am happy this is in talks and see no way whatsoever this could get abused. This definitely gives additional needed power that was not sufficiently replicated by any other legislature. We are not in perpetual times of war. With any luck, this will allow us to stop every terrorist act before they have a chance to occur. In fact, if it even stops one terrorist act, it will be worth it, no matter how many innocents are negatively impacted in the process.

Did you steal that from Colbert?

No, I just occasionally like to write out things that are the exact opposite of how I really feel, and then go back and look at them later, to make sure they're was as flying rodent gak insane as I thought it was.

Yeah, one of my issues with this law is why now? What is so much more dangerous now than it was after 9/11? Why do we need all this "new" ways of doing things? Because one terrorist attack got through our net?

More people die of food poisoning each year than died on 9/11, and I don't see us cracking down on food inspections? Perhaps a "war on food" is needed?

More people die each year from STDs and giving birth. We need a "war on sex"...although I think my wife already enlisted.

Easy E...I think your a terrorist suspect...SEIZE HIM!!!

Actually what will happen is we detain you and then pass you over to local law enforcement. If your throwing moltov cocktails at us...hope you have a passport on you if you do. Then we get to hold onto to you a bit longer..since we pepper spray you with mil grade riot control agents and need to make sure your not going to start "kicking chicken" and then put you in a brig/holding cell that doesn't have television and toilet paper that 40 grit. Eventually you stand before a federal judge...do know we have federal judges on post right?. If your caught jerking around a restricted area...say...Pack Shed at Ft. Bragg..you will be given one verbal warning to desist and get on the ground...or eat a couple of beanbags...before it wa buck. Then your really up crap creek.......well...if you do this on a military installation

Jihadin wrote:

The problem is that under this bill the administration/military can simply say "we think you are a terrorist" and just pick you up and lock you away.

In my experience and some others. We don't go around and picking anyone out thinking their a terrorist. Want to try to clarify that a bit more?

Not speaking directly to your experience but during the early Iraq and Afghanistan days that's exactly what we did. A significant percentage of suspected terrorists or militants in Iraqi, Egyptian, or Afghani jails were sent there on suspicion then released some time later. The CIA is known to capture and move foreign nationals from one country to another without judicial oversight and for a time was getting caught at it regularly. Guantanamo bay is sort of emblematic of the fact that the U.S. will hold people indefinitely without charge. Whether we do it to our own citizens is a more nebulous manner (Bradley manning for instance) as it has occurred in the past, but it's certainly irregular.

Here I was wondering if anyone remembered poor, little Bradley Manning.

Shuma

early Iraq and Afghanistan days that's exactly what we did

and we still do. Do you know why?

and as I stated earlier who ever we detained gets process further along like you said in your statement

CIA is a different animal so I'm stickng with the military since the military was brought up. I know someone going to bring up Delta Force/Special Forces

Jihadin wrote:Shuma

early Iraq and Afghanistan days that's exactly what we did

and we still do. Do you know why?

and as I stated earlier who ever we detained gets process further along like you said in your statement

CIA is a different animal so I'm stickng with the military since the military was brought up. I know someone going to bring up Delta Force/Special Forces

When someones been in the process of 'processing' for more then five years you should probably stop splitting hairs and just admit that they're being held until someone decides to let them go. This gak doesn't take that long and that can be a quarter of someones entire life spent in a jail on a bad tip given to Americans that don't do that oversight thing too well at times.

daedalus wrote:I am happy this is in talks and see no way whatsoever this could get abused. This definitely gives additional needed power that was not sufficiently replicated by any other legislature. We are not in perpetual times of war. With any luck, this will allow us to stop every terrorist act before they have a chance to occur. In fact, if it even stops one terrorist act, it will be worth it, no matter how many innocents are negatively impacted in the process.

Brilliant

When someones been in the process of 'processing' for more then five years you should probably stop splitting hairs and just admit that they're being held until someone decides to let them go. This gak doesn't take that long and that can be a quarter of someones entire life spent in a jail on a bad tip given to Americans that don't do that oversight thing too well at times.

Enemy Combatants. Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW), or Prisoners of War (POW)
War is ugly is it not. Law of War is in play not Bill of Rights or Due Process for those in Gitmo. Some were release and some went back to fighting so either recapture or killed. Perfer captured for intell. Since their not US citizens and in custody of the US military who (personnel question to yourself and all) who would you perfer to handle them. US court system or military tribunal. Keep them in federal prison or state prison. Afford them the rights of a US citizen even though their not a US citizen? Have them apply for citizenship?

As to why we would detain/qestion a Haji in Iraq or Afghanistan I give a few example. Which won't work if appiled in the U.S.

1. Haji vehicle with four brand new tires
2. Filming or photgrapthing a ECP site (Entry Control Point)
3. Digging at a roadside
4. Observed spacing out three "markers" besides a road
5. Hanging out in particular area near a coalition position for a couple of days
6. A well groomed freshly washed and shaved male. We gather everyone behind him that stayed to "watch"
7. Haji house that been observed with multiple males coming in and out of the building with AK's

Just a few. Those of us thats been over keep quiet till someone ask lol

There's no doubt it was the policy of locking up suspects for years without trial helped a lot to support the COTW's great success in Aghanistan and Iraq.

What's COTW, forgive mY ignorance

Continuation Of The War?

Enemy Combatants. Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW), or Prisoners of War (POW)
War is ugly is it not. Law of War is in play not Bill of Rights or Due Process for those in Gitmo. Some were release and some went back to fighting so either recapture or killed. Perfer captured for intell. Since their not US citizens and in custody of the US military who (personnel question to yourself and all) who would you perfer to handle them. US court system or military tribunal.

U.S. court system. I dislike the idea of non public trials for foreign nationals that are representative and paid for by the U.S. public but which are hidden from them and follow entirely different laws. I've never bought the idea that terrorists are the purview of the military, they're just high profile criminals when not state sponsored. Sure, the military is likely going to be required to kill or capture them, but the military justice system is a small and poor one and it's doing a bad job as is.

Also, they're only the legal purview of the military if they're 'enemy combatants' which itself doesn't mean anything at this point and certainly doesn't cover a good portion of those captured.

Keep them in federal prison or state prison. Afford them the rights of a US citizen even though their not a US citizen? Have them apply for citizenship?

Federal prison.
No, they aren't citizens.
No.

Write up some laws or something for dealing with them. Don't stuff them into a blank page of the rulebook and throw them in the dungeon. That's what tyrants and terrorists do and it's what we've been doing for a decade.

As to why we would detain/qestion a Haji in Iraq or Afghanistan I give a few example. Which won't work if appiled in the U.S.

It doesn't work well there either. It's illegal and always has been.

Jihadin wrote:Might want to read the entire thread and see how this went down

You might bother actually reading my post when you respond to that, instead of claiming to read my post and responding to something else entirely.

d-usa wrote:And I would be perfectly fine with anybody that is accused of being a terrorist, even a citizen inside the US, being picked up by law enforcement and being charged.

The problem is that under this bill the administration/military can simply say "we think you are a terrorist" and just pick you up and lock you away.

It just feels like we are getting closer and closer to the "you are an enemy of the state, time to send you to the Gulag" of the Soviet Union.

Exactly. Exactly exactly exactly.

I heard something about this bill from my father. Apparently the bill originally left "US citizens (non military)" out of the 'covered persons' section. Even without US citizens being covered persons, it's still a horribly dangerous bill. Anyone can be picked up off the street and detained for no apparent reason, and most likely be interrogated or tortured.

Didn't we have something like this in 'Nam to root out VC? I forget.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:

Easy E wrote:

daedalus wrote:I am happy this is in talks and see no way whatsoever this could get abused. This definitely gives additional needed power that was not sufficiently replicated by any other legislature. We are not in perpetual times of war. With any luck, this will allow us to stop every terrorist act before they have a chance to occur. In fact, if it even stops one terrorist act, it will be worth it, no matter how many innocents are negatively impacted in the process.

Did you steal that from Colbert?

No, I just occasionally like to write out things that are the exact opposite of how I really feel, and then go back and look at them later, to make sure they're was as flying rodent gak insane as I thought it was.

CptJake wrote:
I suggest you read the bills in question before spreading the crap guys like Anders want you to spread. Frankly, the opening post is very, very wrong. For example, CONUS the military (or DoD civilians) can only arrest on a military installation and then cannot hold the perp in a military detention facility unless the perp is subject to the UCMJ.

You're missing the point of the original post, which is essentially that this particular bill applies no additional protection to US citizens taken into custody overseas. The Udall amendment further does not strip citizens of any protections provided for by the law, it merely eliminates the requirement for military custody from the class of covered persons.

Ye gods. The US government only understands what human rights are when attacking someone else.

And no, it dose not matter who it is or what they have done human rights still apply.

Nitpicking here-- that doesn't mean that someone using drugs purchased them from anything related to there. More local producers (IE on the same continent) have a far bigger presence, and are a far bigger problem that we need to deal with sooner....

wasn't aimed at me or was?

Do know 40% of Taliban finance is from the Opium trade.
You need to read to who I'm replying to

edit
So no one remembers the American Taliban? or choose not to?

edt two

Opium cultivation in Afghanistan fell by 22 percent this year and prices for the drug tumbled causing farmers to switch to other crops, the United Nations said on Wednesday.

Despite the decrease, Afghanistan is still the world's leading producer of opium, which is processed into highly addictive heroin and smuggled abroad.

Here are some facts and figures about Afghanistan's opium crop.

* In 2009, Afghanistan cultivated 123,000 hectares of opium compared to 157,000 hectares in 2008, a 22 percent decrease. This year's crop still accounts for around 90 percent of the world's supply. Cultivation peaked in 2007 at 193,000 hectares.

* In 2009, 6,900 tons of opium were produced compared to 7,700 tons in 2008, a 10 percent drop. To put it into perspective, the 800 ton decline this year is roughly double the amount produced in the "Golden Triangle," the major opium-producing region of Southeast Asia.

Production did not see as dramatic a decrease as cultivation this year due to record high yields -- an average of 56 kg per hectare, a 15 percent increase on 2008 -- caused by good weather and farmers concentrating their crops in fertile and irrigated lowlands. Afghanistan's opium yields are on average more than five times higher per hectare than in the Golden Triangle.

* The number of poppy free provinces -- those that cultivate less than 100 hectares -- rose from 18 provinces in 2008 to 20 provinces this year, out of a total 34 provinces in the country. Ninety-nine percent of cultivation in 2009 was concentrated in seven provinces in the south and west, all insecure areas where the Taliban insurgency is strongest.

* Helmand, in Afghanistan's restive south, cultivates by far the most opium in the country. Despite a 33 percent decrease this year, 57 percent of the country's opium was still grown in Helmand, 69,833 hectares compared to 103,590 in 2008. Helmand cultivated three times more opium than Kandahar, the second biggest poppy growing province.

* The amount of opium Afghanistan produces every year far exceeds world demand for illicit opiates derived from the drug -- around 5,000 tons. High levels of production over the past few years have caused prices for opium to fall dramatically.

The average wholesale price for dry opium in 2009 was $64 per kg compared to $95 last year, a 33 percent drop.

* Lower prices mean opium farmers' gross income also decreased this year to $3,562 per hectare, a 24 percent decrease on 2008. In 2003, a farmer would earn on average $12,700 per hectare.

* The total wholesale value of Afghanistan's opium crop this year is $438 million compared to $730 million in 2008, a massive 40 percent drop. Afghanistan's opium industry now accounts for 4 percent of the country's GDP compared to 7 percent in 2008, 13 percent in 2007 and a record 27 percent in 2002.

* This year an estimated 1.6 million people in Afghanistan were involved in opium cultivation, down from 2.4 million in 2008, a 27 percent drop.

* The United Nations considers efforts to eradicate the crop to be a failure. Only 5,351 hectares of opium were eradicated in 2009 and 5,480 hectares last year, less than 4 percent of the amount planted. A total of 99 people involved in eradication were killed in the past two years.

*

Although around 90 percent of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan

, only 2 percent is seized within the country. In comparison, more than 20 percent of the world's supply of cocaine is seized in Colombia, the drug's main producer.

Yes, I know that. But that doesn't mean that money is made here in the US.

Melissia wrote:Yes, I know that. But that doesn't mean that money is made here in the US.

It's made in China and North Africa when you follow where afghani opium goes.

That's what I gathered as well. Opium isn't a very popular drug here compared to asia and africa.