Answer the question, please.
You are running from alprova.
If you are right, you don't need to run. Produce the language.
Here is the passage in question:
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(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.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection
Very sorry to jump to a conclusion. It's what I understood from your post. Your clarification was much more specific. I imagine you even have specific examples which some of us would find illuminating.
Indeed, it can be difficult to learn if you are in compliance at times because different things are overseen by varied departments at local, state and federal levels.
We have tried to learn if we are in compliance on certain issues and have had conflicting information about to which department we need to report to. Sometimes when we know the correct department, they merely refer us to the inscrutable annotated code which could be interpreted differently.
We have actually been told on one occassion that a department could not tell us if we were in compliance; however, we would find out when we are inspected.... If not in compliance, we could be fined.
So thanks for the clarification. I always welcome dialogue. That's why I ask you questions. I don't blankly assume you are wrong. You have to admit, that unlike face to face conversations, it's a little more laborious to get full understanding of nuance.
So thanks again. Although I'm still not sure how the tax assessment would work.
I'm glad you started posting again. You are a reasonable voice from the right of center.
I deal with banks everyday, too. We have seen requirements tighten on us both professionally and personally.
Certainly new business can be stiffled by making it harder to get loans... no matter what the underlying reason is.
Clearly the banks did not do enough in the past to protect their back doors. Look where that got us.
How did that work out for business? It nearly killed ours.
And don't just blame the banks, while you're at it. Lots of companies are sitting on capital because of this shake up. Despite record profits and increasing reserves, some companies are not expanding or hiring new people. Poor oversight has decreased many people's confidence in the American financial system and the American economy. Rightly so.
Cost benefit analysis is nice. Increasing costs to government do need to be recouped, but are you sure tax increases are needed? Perhaps sometimes they would be, but frequently new regulations expand on industry and create a larger tax base.
There was a time when hospitals and medical offices were allowed to discard blood soaked bandages, needles and syringes into the regular garbage.
It cost more to dispose of these safely, sure. There are oversight costs associated with OSHA etc. But there are also new products created. People had to start making more and more Sharps containers. More incinerators were needed to handle infectious products. Entire businesses (which pay taxes) were created for this regulation.
The workplace was safer, meaning fewer occupational exposures to HIV and other infectious diseases. This would translate to fewer medical bankruptcies and therefore decreased burden on the social safety net.
So, when people (like tu) talk just about the costs associated with regulation, clearly they are missing a great deal of the picture.
You make a good point about regulations being a hidden tax.
What is the cost of not having those regulations?
Keep in mind, the cost is not limited to just $$$$. There can be human costs.
God forbid we deregulate coal mining.
If we followed your sweeping statements, we would be in a terrible mess.
To present a convincing argument about deregulation, you really have to be specific. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir or talking to hear yourself talk. What's the point?
I think Republicans need to be specific about which regulations they would like repealed. Few of them occurred in a vacuum, and most were created to combat abuses.
I am not a blanket supporter of regulation. But we must be practical. And specific.
Let's start with tobacco and advertising as an example. Government public awareness and restrictions have helped lead to a massive decrease in smoking nationally. Is this bad? Should we unfetter the tobacco industry?
What about the unregulated pollution of our local streams like Chattanooga creek? Anyone want to turn back the clock so we can have another superfund site?
You're blaming Clay for the ridiculous name calling that appeared today. This cartoon was probably the most non-political cartoon he has drawn in a while.
People posting have politicized it and then just started pointlessly debasing one another.
Basically, in a political vacuum, people showed their true colors.
I think if Clay put up a blank sheet of paper, the converstation would not have been much different. You're pushing your agenda, jonses is pushing his, tu is pushing his (tu is a he), NGADad is pushing his.
Overall, this day has been a stunning display of narcissism.
I think most of us have read about Sweden.... There is a lesson there, which we can discuss.
But feet to the fire: what is a Marxist/Socialist? Let's see how your definition squares with Obama. Then we will see how that squares with the free market economies in Europe that many conservatives have referred to as socialist..... Until today.
The Trainer
Love this cartoon. Topical. Local. Gives the local trolls a day off from using the number 16.
All kidding aside regarding trolls.... It is really stunning to learn what goes on at Walking Horse shows. Really. It's not big money. It's a triffle.
Just goes to show you that when money and/or pride is at stake, some people will go to great lengths to gain so little.
Deregulation
joneses,
Answer the question, please. You are running from alprova.
If you are right, you don't need to run. Produce the language.
Here is the passage in question:
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (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. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. (f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection
Deregulation
Harp,
Very sorry to jump to a conclusion. It's what I understood from your post. Your clarification was much more specific. I imagine you even have specific examples which some of us would find illuminating.
Indeed, it can be difficult to learn if you are in compliance at times because different things are overseen by varied departments at local, state and federal levels.
We have tried to learn if we are in compliance on certain issues and have had conflicting information about to which department we need to report to. Sometimes when we know the correct department, they merely refer us to the inscrutable annotated code which could be interpreted differently.
We have actually been told on one occassion that a department could not tell us if we were in compliance; however, we would find out when we are inspected.... If not in compliance, we could be fined.
So thanks for the clarification. I always welcome dialogue. That's why I ask you questions. I don't blankly assume you are wrong. You have to admit, that unlike face to face conversations, it's a little more laborious to get full understanding of nuance.
So thanks again. Although I'm still not sure how the tax assessment would work.
I'm glad you started posting again. You are a reasonable voice from the right of center.
Deregulation
timbo,
I deal with banks everyday, too. We have seen requirements tighten on us both professionally and personally.
Certainly new business can be stiffled by making it harder to get loans... no matter what the underlying reason is.
Clearly the banks did not do enough in the past to protect their back doors. Look where that got us.
How did that work out for business? It nearly killed ours.
And don't just blame the banks, while you're at it. Lots of companies are sitting on capital because of this shake up. Despite record profits and increasing reserves, some companies are not expanding or hiring new people. Poor oversight has decreased many people's confidence in the American financial system and the American economy. Rightly so.
Deregulation
Harp,
Cost benefit analysis is nice. Increasing costs to government do need to be recouped, but are you sure tax increases are needed? Perhaps sometimes they would be, but frequently new regulations expand on industry and create a larger tax base.
There was a time when hospitals and medical offices were allowed to discard blood soaked bandages, needles and syringes into the regular garbage.
It cost more to dispose of these safely, sure. There are oversight costs associated with OSHA etc. But there are also new products created. People had to start making more and more Sharps containers. More incinerators were needed to handle infectious products. Entire businesses (which pay taxes) were created for this regulation.
The workplace was safer, meaning fewer occupational exposures to HIV and other infectious diseases. This would translate to fewer medical bankruptcies and therefore decreased burden on the social safety net.
So, when people (like tu) talk just about the costs associated with regulation, clearly they are missing a great deal of the picture.
Deregulation
Tu,
You make a good point about regulations being a hidden tax.
What is the cost of not having those regulations?
Keep in mind, the cost is not limited to just $$$$. There can be human costs.
God forbid we deregulate coal mining.
If we followed your sweeping statements, we would be in a terrible mess.
To present a convincing argument about deregulation, you really have to be specific. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir or talking to hear yourself talk. What's the point?
Deregulation
I think Republicans need to be specific about which regulations they would like repealed. Few of them occurred in a vacuum, and most were created to combat abuses.
I am not a blanket supporter of regulation. But we must be practical. And specific.
Let's start with tobacco and advertising as an example. Government public awareness and restrictions have helped lead to a massive decrease in smoking nationally. Is this bad? Should we unfetter the tobacco industry?
What about the unregulated pollution of our local streams like Chattanooga creek? Anyone want to turn back the clock so we can have another superfund site?
Commencement
BRP,
You're blaming Clay for the ridiculous name calling that appeared today. This cartoon was probably the most non-political cartoon he has drawn in a while.
People posting have politicized it and then just started pointlessly debasing one another.
Basically, in a political vacuum, people showed their true colors.
I think if Clay put up a blank sheet of paper, the converstation would not have been much different. You're pushing your agenda, jonses is pushing his, tu is pushing his (tu is a he), NGADad is pushing his.
Overall, this day has been a stunning display of narcissism.
Commencement
Lots of pots and kettles today.....
(BRP, I think we found some common ground on this one.... Except for the wart part.)
Presidential Seal
Ok BRP,
I think most of us have read about Sweden.... There is a lesson there, which we can discuss.
But feet to the fire: what is a Marxist/Socialist? Let's see how your definition squares with Obama. Then we will see how that squares with the free market economies in Europe that many conservatives have referred to as socialist..... Until today.