the death of habeus corpus [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Scott R. Brown

10-17-2006, 12:57 AM

I wouldn’t worry about it!

Lincoln suspended HB during the Civil War. It was returned. Roosevelt did the same thing during WWII and it was once again returned. Remember the Japanese internment camps?

Most of the time everything comes out in the wash in the end, but sometimes it doesn't! Does anyone remember the trial of the Branch Davidians in Waco? I don't think they had one! Or how about Elian Gonzales? Did he get a fair hearing?

There will be some injustices to be sure, but overall this is nothing new that America hasn't already done repeatedly and we have survived with our civil rights intact and sometimes more strongly protected.

There is no need to panic unless you are one of the ones to be unfairly incarcerated. Then it is time to complain!!

Governments are never going to be perfect. In America there is always a struggle to balance civil rights with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What I mean by this is the intent is to protect the rights of the majority by suspending HB on the few for the benefit of the right to live of the majority. The fine line between the two rights will always vacillate depending upon the needs of the time and the social necessity for each. Because in America we have a vigorous and never-ending political debate on these issues it is doubtful this “limited” suspension will last forever. As long as Americans have the right to vote, free speech and to assemble to protest there will be means available to respond to perceived injustices.

Injustice is in the eye of the beholder anyway. I worked over 12 years in Corrections. Not many felons believe they deserve incarceration. It is the tensional pull between two opposite views that keeps our rights somewhere in the middle. Sometimes they will lean towards permissiveness and sometimes towards restrictiveness. Balance is found when the two opposing views counter each other keeping extremes under control. This is the designed purpose the American founding fathers had when creating the American political system. It is set up so that opposing views will control each other through political debate and the result is protection from extremes.

David Jamieson

10-17-2006, 01:13 AM

wow scott. comparing bushes war on shadows to the civil war and ww2.

are you sure you're not rove? lol

yeah, Mussolinis government gafs came to a good resolution in the end so i guess it all does come out in the wash. :rolleyes:

gonzalez? the cuban kid? can a little kid even be tried?

waco? isn't there still some flap going on over how the atf proceeded with that? didn't they kill some kids?

omarthefish

10-17-2006, 01:49 AM

I wouldn’t worry about it!

Lincoln suspended HB during the Civil War. It was returned. Roosevelt did the same thing during WWII and it was once again returned. Remember the Japanese internment camps?

Most of the time everything comes out in the wash in the end, but sometimes it doesn't! Does anyone remember the trial of the Branch Davidians in Waco? I don't think they had one! Or how about Elian Gonzales? Did he get a fair hearing?

There will be some injustices to be sure, but overall this is nothing new that America hasn't already done repeatedly and we have survived with our civil rights intact and sometimes more strongly protected..

Huge difference. Aside from the sheer comedy of comparing Bush's "war on terror" to WW2 or the Civil War......I mean, the "war on terror" isn't actually a war anymore than the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty" is. Did we enter WW2 so that Roosevelt could have an excuse to suspend Habeas Corpus?

The Branch Davidians were:

a. killed in the act of apprehension. They were not seized and then denied trial. If they surrendered them selves do you honestly think they would have been denied their constitutional rights?

b. A huge scandal. There was inquiry. It was an embarrassment. It wasn't written into law. Your example is like taking an unpunished act of police brutality and comparing it to a law that states that polices officers may legally beat the **** out of anyone that looks "suspicious".

There is a HUGE difference between illegal actions like the Japanese internment camps (reparations were paid even if too little and too late) to simply legislating that that is now how we do things. Under the new law you would not be enitled to any recourse. Take the Canadian citizen in the clip posted that was seized at the US border and deported to Syria (even though he was a Canadian) and then brutally tortured for 10 months before he was cleared. With the new law, he could have been an American citizen and it would STILL be legal under American law. It's bad enough as it is.

This is NOT like anything that has come before. What has come before was not legislated into legality. Habeas corpus, on occasion, has not been observed but it has, in the past, been ILLEGAL.

Fuxen is right. Once this passes we are officially no longer a democracy. I don't know the right term because I don't think it IS a military dictatorship but the president IS being given dictatorial powers.

Scott R. Brown

10-17-2006, 02:17 AM

Hi David,

911 wasn’t a shadow, over 3,000 people died, but the terrorists responsible and those that still exist, living in the shadows, does not mean we are in no danger from them. It is BECAUSE they live in the shadows that the danger is considered greater. Hiding amongst us and taking advantage of our freedoms to our detriment is where the danger resides. It is easier to defeat an enemy you can identify then the enemy that hides within the shadows, right?

Hitler gained the power and imposed the destruction and genocide he did because good people did nothing to stop him when his threat was lesser. In general, our criminal justice system is reactive; Bush is attempting to be proactive. This proactiveness is intended to protect lives, not squash civil rights. There is a political danger in this. Think of the position Bush is in! If he does too little there will be another attack and he will be considered responsible and criticized for doing too little. If he does too much then he is considered to be trampling on civil rights in order to over-extend the power of government. It is a no-win situation politically. His first priority is the protection of the American people. If he appears to over-extend and there are no more attacks then his over-extension is viewed as unnecessary and not given the credit for protecting the citizenry.

In some circumstances it is more prudent to be overly cautious than not cautious enough. This is mostly likely one of those times. Very few individuals will be affected by the suspension of HB. The suspension of HB will be considered insignificant by most Americans until it appears to over-extend itself, which will occur when it affects a larger number of individuals in an unfair manner. It will then be reeled in. That is the American political system at work. But woe is to the man who reels it in and then another major attack comes because of its repeal.

We are in the mess we are in because the Clinton administration imposed too many barriers on intelligence gathering and sharing. We are now paying the price of too great of a protection of civil rights and 3,000 people died because of it. The pendulum has temporarily swung the opposite direction. At some point it will once again swing back!

Generally, we must consider the imposition of restrictions of SOME civil rights worth the protection of 3,000 or more lives. So far the impact of HB’s suspension is minor, therefore it is not really imposing on the civil rights of the majority. I don’t mind losing “some” civil rights if it protects the majority. I would not like to be unfairly incarnated, but then I don’t participate in suspicious activities either! Individual’s must consider the consequnces of their own behaviors under the present climate and take responsibility for them. If you are purchasing over 1,000 disposable cell phones, which are known to be used for terrorist activities, why should one complain when their activities are examined and they are incarcerated? If one is sending money to suspicious organizations in foreign countries one must expect examination and be able to demonstrate their actions are mundane. Do you have the right to purchase 1,000 cell phones? Not anymore! You must demonstrate a very good reason for it! If you call a Black man the “N” word you get what you asked for! If you behave in a clearly suspicious manner in today’s climate then you get what you asked for as well! All actions have consequnces. It is only the fool and those seeking to take advantage of our criminal system to their own advantage and the general population's disavantage that would complain.

Yes, the government over-extended itself in the Waco incident. There was no imminent danger to anyone at the time and no reason to attack the Davidian nuts. Were they breaking the law? Well it was originally a weapons possession violation if I recall correctly. Then to gain popular support, they suggested child abuse. Well death for no good reason is a bit worse than unproven child abuse claims. There is still some question over who and how the fire started. The Davidian’s are responsible for their behaviors, don’t misunderstand me, but the government pushed too hard, too fast and civil rights and lives were lost. The whole affair from beginning to end was completely mishandled and those responsible have not been punished. But then las I stated earlier, no government is perfect!

Scott R. Brown

10-17-2006, 02:39 AM

Hi Omar,

It is most likely that your fears are over-exaggerated.

Do you think no one was tortured and killed during evidence extraction during WWII? My grandfather was a chaplain and witnessed a Yugoslav spy being tortured. Are there excesses? Yes! There always are and always will be. It is foolish to think we will ever live in an idealized world. Mistakes occur, individuals will become over-zealous.

While I am sorry for the man in Canada, I do not take the the news account as gospel. The former head of CNN stated publicly that he squashed and ignored occurrences in Iraq for the sole purpose of keeping a bureau in country. You believe the news account because you want too. I do not accept it out of hand.

One man's torture is another man's fraternity hazing!

If the events, as stated, in fact occurred then I am sorry for the individual. However, I am more concerned that we do not lose the lives of another 3,000 or more Americans. We should make every effort to ensure that we catch the right people, but mistakes will occur from time to time. Providing acceptable apologies and compensation are the proper response to these errors.

In an ideal world the innocent are protected and the guilty punished. Realistically this will never occur. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but neither should we be surprised when injustice occurs. I myself have been treated in what I consider to be an unjust manner by the criminal justice system. I was angry about it, but that is life. I can carry it around as a burden or I can let it go and get on with my life. I chose to get on with my life.

Whining that life is unfair is unproductive, as is fearing what has not yet occurred with no clear evidence that it will occur. If you want to have an unrealistic fear, then fear the meteor the Russian astronomer insists will hit the earth in the next 10 or 20 years, but then maybe the aliens will abduct us all before then!;)

omarthefish

10-17-2006, 03:21 AM

Hitler gained the power and imposed the destruction and genocide he did because good people did nothing to stop him when his threat was lesser.

Exactly.

You really could have ended your post right there. The rest of it is you actually arguing....I can't believe you have the balls to argue it in public...that it is OK to torture, imprision without trial, arrest without stating charges etc. You listed various atrocities and heinous crimes explaining that well, life's not perfect. Yeah. No ****. That's why we have laws against that stuff.

In an ideal world the innocent are protected and the guilty punished. Realistically this will never occur. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but neither should we be surprised when injustice occurs.

So what's your point then? You seem to be arguoing both sides. I hope to god that my fears ARE exaggerated but why should I assume that they aren't? That is exactly how atrocities happen and (only on page one and already you mentioned Hitler) in Germany the argument "it can't happen here" was tossed around too. It CAN happen here. In fact, it IS happening here. The only question is how far it is going to go. Life DOES go on and crimes DO happen and sometimes it all ends in the destruction of a nation, the extermination of a minority group or the shift from Democracy to a dictatorship. That's how it happens all the time and the argument for the removal of cival liberties and basic human rights goes something like this:

It is BECAUSE they live in the shadows that the danger is considered greater. Hiding amongst us and taking advantage of our freedoms to our detriment is where the danger resides. It is easier to defeat an enemy you can identify then the enemy that hides within the shadows, right?

That is the exact same argument used in the McCarthy era, early Natzi Germany and endless other places where cult of personality leaders rose and destroyed the constitutional govt that had existed previous. That IS the CLASSIC argument. Just replace "terrorists" with the political or ethnic group of the day. It is a circular reasoning. You punch someone in the face and then they hit you and then you fight and then you rationalize that it was right to punch them in the face because, see? He is a violent person. Even the 911 commision finnaly found that the actions to supposedly fight terror have had the exact opposite effect. The make the above argument is disengenuous and, quote frankly, disgusting.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for even pretending to believe that line of thought.

b82rez

10-17-2006, 07:35 AM

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” -- Theodore Roosevelt

How much are you willing to put up with for your own feeling of security? The Muslim who stops to pray in public could be a fanatic...so get him away from me...the priest walking around patting kids on the head looks like he could in some way be a pedophile...lock him up...the women walking around in mini-skirts arouse men so we should cover them up to protect them from potential rape, etc (sound familiar?)

You guys see where I'm going with this. Some of you have posted on it. The bottom line is...we either have our rights or we don't. Any laws that make it convenient to side-step any of those rights by the powers that be go against what this country should stand for and what we claim to stand for in our "war on terror".

The right course of action in any situation is an opinon or based on personal agenda if left up to only one man or one group. You really get the population involved and positive change would take an upper hand.

Stop letting others make decisions for you. POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

TaiChiBob

10-17-2006, 07:37 AM

Greetings..

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The US system is not some elitist self-serving ideal.. it is basic to everyone of every nation.. these are "self-evident truths".. The US must stand for something, must rise above the rest.. as we separate ourselves from the rest of the world, as we savor our freedoms and exclude others.. we build the resentment that will be our undoing.. This administration exports customed designed "democracy", it practices deception upon the world at large and upon the very people from which they derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed".. This administration not only uses existing loopholes to circumvent its own laws, it creates new ones.. The US is spiraling into the same mire as the rest of the world, where once we were a shining example of hope.. The people, by their silence, consent...

Be well...

AJM

10-17-2006, 07:49 AM

The United States has been a military dictatorship since wwII. The National Security act of 1947 made it official.

David Jamieson

10-17-2006, 08:32 AM

scott-

your first sentence...beginning with "911 wasn't a shadow..." sounds like you're a ditto head to the bush admin. Really hurts your credibility, despite the ubiquity of words you blurt out following that. Is 911 even remotely connect to Iraq? no. Has Bush changed his motivations for taking Amerioca into that unilateral attack on a weakened country? Yes, several times. I could go on and on and on and on. Would you sidetrack it further? Lincoln? WW2? wtf man???

who the heck said anything about 911 and how is bush having a war on 911?

Just watch what is happening, because, if you're american, it is definitely at some point going to effect you if he gets away with this nonsense.

Don't even bother trying to convince me that there is even one iota of the correct in the Bush admin, because they have worked very hard to erode their credibility fromday one as far as I'm concerned.

I said he was a blundering and failed statesman then and Im saying it again now.
You are of course are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to serve horse**** and think that people will just lap it up.

good grief.

Radhnoti

10-17-2006, 10:44 AM

MasterKiller

10-17-2006, 11:19 AM

P.S. I also agree with Scott that much of the anti-Bush media sources (meaning all but Fox News and talk radio) greatly exaggerate things. Hopefully that's the case with this specific legislation.

You have to be kidding me. He's had a cake-walk in the press by either paying off or strong-arming the media since 9/11.

Bush has faced less media scrutiny over Iraq and Afghanistan combined than Clinton did over Elian Gonzales. :rolleyes:

FuXnDajenariht

10-17-2006, 11:53 AM

so you agree with the party line that the basic human rights of non US citizens are meaningless?

we're not Iran and this is definitely not the ****ing Middle East. im soo soo tired of people invoking 9/11 as an excuse for corrupt, illegal and just plain wrongheaded actions. i might catch flack for this but so what? 3000 people have died. we were caught off guard. its seriously time to move on. the population just reached 300 million today. the future of American society is under attack. i think we really have more immediate and pressing matters to concern us.

whats truly insulting is that the lives and deaths of 3000 people are continually used for politically gain. its been proven the war on Iraq has made us less safe. we haven't been attacked. thats great. but it certainly hasn't been because of anything that King Bush has done. we haven't been attacked despite his actions. you and i all know that. most Americans know that. but yet we still fall for the party line bull****.

it definitely not PC to say this but truly ask yourself if 3000 lives are worth the destruction of the very foundation of American society. i certainly dont think so. many hundreds of thousands reaching into the millions have freely given their lives to protect us against legitimate threats against out liberty. WW2 being one of them. we spit on their graves when we allow legislation like this to pass. so we can hide all safe and secure. but then you say we paid for protecting freedoms too much with 9/11? you cannot be ****ing serious dude..... comparing torture to fraternity hazing? really?

this argument is totally inexcusable. we know how to fight the war on terror. it certainly doesn't have anything to do with an actual war. its been proven. its fought on the local level with good police work and intelligence gathering. Britain and other countries successfully use this method. with far superior results than we've ever had. i might add without major changes to their constitution. alienating the rights of citizens or insighting muslim anger. it also didn't put their governments in trillions of dollars of debt. so dont give me that Iraq war apologetic bull****

i might catch more flack for this but i'd rather lose the lives of 3000 more Americans than see the constitution and the bill of rights spit on, trampled on and destroyed, because you know what? a lot more of us are gonna lose our lives if worse comes to worse and we finally wake up, but its too late and we're in an actual fight for our freedoms. and i would be the first one signing up and laying down my life for that fight.. no lost of any of our freedoms is acceptable in my opinion.

Becca

10-17-2006, 01:42 PM

the fact that he wants to pardon himself of war crimes pre-emptively is evidence right there of his crimes.

And the fact that he's trying to strip us of our constitutional rights just because he says so didn't???

FuXnDajenariht

10-17-2006, 02:15 PM

i understand what your saying but this is on another level i think. hes basically protecting himself from being tried internationally as a war criminal. an American president....i cant even wrap my brain around that. im not sure anyone even accused him of war crimes. its sort of like a company making customers sign a waiver protecting against lawsuits for a product they know is dangerous and can cause fatalities before they purchase it.

we know his entire aimless administration is bent on consolidating as much power for the executive branch as possible and flushing the Constitution one law at a time down the toilet is their means to an end. but i think Americans were gonna finally stand up and fight back on election day. this is how our democracy works. thats how things are done ideally, since i dont think anyone expected him to get impeached.

.....but that bill can take this "game" to a whole nother level.

i dont even pretend to understand the motivation behind half the irrational things the white house does.

FuXnDajenariht

10-17-2006, 02:21 PM

You have to be kidding me. He's had a cake-walk in the press by either paying off or strong-arming the media since 9/11.

Bush has faced less media scrutiny over Iraq and Afghanistan combined than Clinton did over Elian Gonzales. :rolleyes:

i agree. freedom of speech always needed improvements in this country, but i'll be d@mn-ed if it hasn't been officially dead since Bush took office. i bet you half the corrupt things the white house has done wont even reach the light of day for another 50 years. the news on some channels reads like a 24 hour propaganda piece.

David Jamieson

10-17-2006, 02:43 PM

Look...I think Bush signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform was a direct assault on our Constitution, specifically the "Freedom of Speech" section. Bush admitted that he thought so as well...BEFORE SIGNING IT. If someone wants to string him up for that, fine. If anyone starts curtailing U.S. citizens their rights...like habeus corpus...I'm all for condemning Bush. Franklin said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.", and I agree with the sentiment.
Having said that, I don't feel it's necessary to give non-citizens the same rights held by U.S. citizens. It's my government's job to protect ME, let other countries work for the rights of it's own citizens via treaties, agreements, etc. That's what ambassadors are for. If I go to Iran and bring in anti-government pamphlets and get arrested, whose fault is that? My own. If I'm lucky the U.S. government will work to make a deal for my release. If a Saudi gets caught here setting up terror cells, I don't WANT him to have the years and years of trials and appeals our system dictates. I want him in a cell receiving the minimum acceptable standard of care, or I want him dead to insure the safety of my friends, neighbors and family. That's my government's job. You say, "What if he's innocent?" I say, when you're in another country you'd better work hard NOT to be in compromising circumstances. Be aware of the climate of the country you're visiting, and be prepared to take responsibility for yourself.

Iraq. Saddam defied the U.S. and the U.N, including 7 or 8 "deadlines"....he had chemical weapons (WMDs) and used them...it's known that he met with representatives of Al Qaida...we know he attempted assassination of a former U.S. President...we know he had the fuselage of a 747 and allowed groups to come and use it to simulate hijacking airliners. I think Bush thought he was close to nukes...the MAJORITY of world wide intelligence organizations seemed to point that way as well.
But for all that, Bush's preemptive strategy is not something I agree with currently. What could show me that Bush was right? The situation in N. Korea. It's easy for us to assign blame to Bush with 20/20 hindsight. Using the situation in N. Korea as a gauge on how you'd have reacted to Iraq...do you think it would be worth it to preemptively strike N.Korea? Are you willing to accept the responsibility if...no, WHEN N. Korea supplies terrorists or rogue states with nukes? They HAVE to export that technology or receive payment NOT to export it, they're too broke NOT to do so. The world has been placed in the wretched circumstance of hoping communist China will bring another communist nation to heel...

P.S. I also agree with Scott that much of the anti-Bush media sources (meaning all but Fox News and talk radio) greatly exaggerate things. Hopefully that's the case with this specific legislation.

hmmm, where to start, where to start, lets start with your second paragraph regarding wmd, the un resolutions etc.

a) when saddam gassed the kurds in northern iraq, he did it with americas blessing and with chemical weapons provided to him by the USA.

b) the original push to get the war part deux going was that the USA had Intel that there was wmd in Iraq. There wasn't, there isn't and there still isn't. After that pile of stupidity, the said it was about regime change. Afetr saddam was toppled it was about spreading democracy. So...why is the USA there now?

c)North Korea. their acquisition of two nuclear reactors was signed off on by *drumroll* Donald Rumsfeld. :rolleyes: Not only that, but NK is a bigger burr in americas ass than Iraq ever was.

d) as an addendum, the only conversation with Al Qaeda that Saddam had was to tell Bin Laden to go F himself. And, intelligence shows from more sources taht there were never any alq camps in Iraq and no connection whatsoever. Not to mention No connection to 911 either. And 12 years of sanctions on Iraq and the oil for food scandal that involved the UN and US business folks and others as well.

What part of it all are people not getting I wonder? Distraction doesn't take away from the egrigiousness of the actions of Bush and Cheney, the PNAC folks and more particularly Wolfowitz's whacko view of how things should be.

assassination on dad is no reason to slaughter 1000's of innocents and steal their country.

so, any one else gonna make excuses for the hubris monkey you would call president? there's a lot more stacked against him and trying to pardon yourself is indeed extraordinary and as stated, practically an admission of guilt. How much longer do we have to deal with this stuff? the whole terror thing can be dealt with in much more effective ways if you remove the asswipe politicians from the equation.

and if you don't think Saudi Arabia is the real problem, then you are an ostrich. But you know what? The Saud royal family just happens to have greased the Bushes to the tune of a billion plus in what is tantamount to hush money.

and, what about cave boy? why can't he be turned up? a trillion dollar fighting force and surveillance system can't turn up one dude in a cave? wtf is wrong with the picture here?

get a grip bushies, your man is the wrong man and never was the right man.

Fu-Pow

10-17-2006, 04:10 PM

Totally agree with the Fuxin.

This kind of **** is scary as hell and yet Americans just lay down for it...the media lays down for it to do "fair and balanced", advertiser friendly commentary.

Bush has no respect for the very fundamentals that our country was founded on and that makes our country unique....ie the Bill of Rights. Bush's ideology=a Theological Authoritarian regime.

He's very very far removed from "fiscal conservatives", look at the billions of dollars wasted on the Iraq war.

Unless things change it will get to the point of civil war....when our civil liberties are so far degraded that the only choice is violence to overthrow the dictatorial authoritarian government...if we are even able.

The Conservative Christian coalition doesn't care though because they think we're all headed towards the "end of days" anyways so as long as they're "good christians" they can **** up this life for everbody else.

**** this ****!! **** America...you don't deserve your rights if you just **** it away by voting for religious tyrannical morons like Bush. People have died for the opportunities that most Americans now take for granted.

What happened to the days when Americans had a spine and didn't just take it up the a$$ from the government.

What was that line from V from Vendetta "it's not people that should fear the government, its the government that should fear the people."

Apparently not in the US where we lay down like dogs while our pursuit of life liberty and happiness is degraded in the name of "national security."

FP

David Jamieson

10-17-2006, 04:34 PM

Merryprankster

10-17-2006, 05:40 PM

Wow,

This thread has taken a giant leap into the abyss. Thank God I didn't read it before it got too long for me to care.

FuXnDajenariht

10-17-2006, 06:46 PM

its the truth Merry. if you can't handle that, then i dont know what to tell you. this effects all of us. i made this thread for people angry enough to do sumthin about it.

Fu-Pow

10-17-2006, 11:54 PM

I wouldn't say Bush is religious. I'd say he has had Rove get into bed with the religious right strictly for that voting block, but as far as Bush being religious? No. Not unless he's a satan worshipper. lol.

Bush is a "born again" christian. It's not so much a denomination as a mindset.

The religious right just happens to be big in the bible belt of america and they neede dthe votes so they pandered to them and pretended to be on board with what roberts, falwell, and the rest of those half baked looney tunes crew had going for them which is a bunch of sheep that can vote. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bush is as far from being a Christian as Bin Laden and way less religious than him too.

The worst thing that ever happened in this country was the pairing of the social "right" with the fiscal "right." Its a huge voting block that largely has nothing to do with each other.

At least the fiscal "right" are understandable and are mostly about rational self-interest. The social "right" on the other hand are mostly religious, fear mongering, irrational fanatical wackos.

When will the fiscal "right" wake up and smell the coffee? I guess as long as they're making money....oh oops....U.S. economy is in the tank....billions of dollars to fight the "radical islamic fascists"...give me a god**** break.

FDR had it right "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

FP

TaiChiBob

10-18-2006, 05:59 AM

Greetings..

Not much more need be said.. more must be done!! We can lament the disolving of the American Ideal, the destruction of the US Constitution, the loss of rights by the "consent of the governed".. yes, WE have consented by our sheepish inaction.. i was an anti-war protester in the late '60s early '70s, we stopped a war! Where have we gone astray? Why haven't WE gone to the streets in protest of this hijacking of the American Philosophy?

The Bush family, each and everyone, has raped this Nation's ideals for profit and gain.. and, they did it by lying and deceiving the people into believing that we will be safer for it.. shame on us!! The administration has done little or nothing to secure the US borders, it feeds the fear that terrorists might be flowing in.. open borders serve the administration's agendas of control by fear..

The US labor force is suffering horrendously at the hands of illegal immigrants, a slow and persistent invasion of a foreign people that gain access illegally, avoid taxes and labor laws, further destabilizing the economy.. and, the invading illegal immigrants can fill the streets with protesters while native-born Americans can't even preserve what is left of our constitution and dignity..

The US public citizenry has been bent over and driven home by an administration that says "if i can't profit from it, if i can't make it serve me, then.. kill it.." and, that same administration laughs as it lies and when it gets caught, it says "so what, we'll just make a law that says it's okay.." How is this possible in "the land of the free and the home of the brave"?

America used to be a shining bright beacon of democracy and fairness, of laws that meant something other than serving the lawmakers.. We are a government "of the people, for the people and by the people", it is high time to reclaim that ideal..

Be well..

Becca

10-18-2006, 07:24 AM

b) the original push to get the war part deux going was that the USA had Intel that there was wmd in Iraq. There wasn't, there isn't and there still isn't. After that pile of stupidity, the said it was about regime change. Afetr saddam was toppled it was about spreading democracy. So...why is the USA there now?

One word: Afganistan. This is the one and only reason I support the war effort. It is a war we had no right starting. But we've taken it too far now. If we walk away with the level of insecurity in Iraq we will be inviting the Taliban to take over there, as well as regain controll of Afganistan. It sucks, no two ways about it. But history has a way of repeating itself, and failing to right a wrong we made is what got us this terrorist problem in the first place.

For all those "Bush Haters"- take a good look... there have been very few presidents who have gotten it right. That's what term limits are for. Bush is pretty dispicable... But so was Clinton, Nixon, and at times, even Regan and Kennedy.

Elections for me are not so much a matter of who can do a better job, but who scarres me the least. And I keep voting for GoGo the Dancing Goat 'cause they all scare me...:(

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 08:00 AM

Oh, so this is where the Liberal Hysteria club is meeting!

:rolleyes:

AJM

10-18-2006, 09:22 AM

That's the stupidest response I've ever read. If you can't say something with a point that's related to the topic you really need to shut up.

omarthefish

10-18-2006, 09:43 AM

Oh, so this is where the Liberal Hysteria club is meeting!

:rolleyes:

So like...you're all good with no habeas corpus and all right?

Just how facist does it have to get exactly before you panic?

Serious question: "What is the lowest level of civil liberties and human rights that you are ok with?" Is the Chinese level good with you? How about Russia? Maybe it's all good as long as we are more free than Afghanistan.....:rolleyes:

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 11:37 AM

So like...you're all good with no habeas corpus and all right?

For terrorists? Yes, I am.

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 11:38 AM

Just how facist does it have to get exactly before you panic?

You remember the problem the boy who cried wolf had, right?

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 11:42 AM

Serious question: "What is the lowest level of civil liberties and human rights that you are ok with?" Is the Chinese level good with you? How about Russia? Maybe it's all good as long as we are more free than Afghanistan.....:rolleyes:

Serious question: How much self-indulgent politically-motivated partisan hysteria are you willing to trade American civilian lives for?:rolleyes:

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 11:44 AM

That's the stupidest response I've ever read. If you can't say something with a point that's related to the topic you really need to shut up.

Gee, thanks for the advice, newbie. I'll be sure to give it all the consideration it deserves.

TaiChiBob

10-18-2006, 12:41 PM

Greetings..

Serious question: How much self-indulgent politically-motivated partisan hysteria are you willing to trade American civilian lives for?Or, how many of America's finest young men and women, how many innocent civilians, how many freedoms must die for the lies and deceptions of the Bush administration?

You remember the problem the boy who cried wolf had, right?Or, the boy who kept silent and was eaten by said wolf.. the one that believed it was a nice Bushie.. oops, i mean, doggie..

For terrorists? Yes, I am.Remember how easily the Bush administration redefines things to suit their agendas? today's protester may be redefined as tomorrow's terrorist.. and, with the administration changing constitutional freedoms there will likely be no way to challenge it..

"Those that would sacrifice freedoms for the promise of security receive nor deserve neither"..

My son is a US Marine, i served in Vietnam.. and i am ashamed of the way this administration has failed the American Dream.. Those that find comfort in the administration's handling of terrorism, the war in Iraq, foreign policy, and social issues may just as well get in line for their brown shirts and black boots..

Millions of Americans have served with pride and dignity to preserve the freedoms and order this administration so off-handedly tosses aside.. many Americans died for these freedoms and this great nation of law and order.. The Bush administration ignores their sacrifices for self-serving interests.. it is a sad day for the American Dream.

In mourning, i bid you well...

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 12:47 PM

See post #46

:rolleyes:

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 12:54 PM

well if you think this is hysteria then call me chicken ****ing little dude. you have the nerve to say we're overreacting when all the Bush administration does is control public opinion with fear and illusory threats. exactly how many times did the terror alert needlessly rise during the last presidential election? i bet you lost count. when Bush walks up to the podium to give a speech count how many times the word terror or security leaves his mouth. homeland security is a joke. they actually took money away from New Yorks homeland security fund the home of his beloved 9/11 campaign issue. and yet he cares about the 9/11 families and our safety soo soo much. its unbelievable.

you must be one of the fox news faithful. no wonder your so brainwashed.

David Jamieson

10-18-2006, 01:06 PM

down the path you go, deeper deeper until it is so dark you can't see anything let alone the hand in front of your face.

the future? Picture a human face, being stomped repeatedly by a jackboot.
(to paraphrase Orwell)

And what's to stop anyone from pegging YOU as a terrorist sympathizer? or a terrorist? what's the guidelines on that? what's the system that's in place to ensure that regular joes aren't targeted by ubiquitous homeland security firms brimming with 8 dollar an hour poorly trained apathetic workers?

enjoy your future america, it's looking grim. your economy is on the road to needing artificial boosting and China and Russia are someone you're just gonna have to bite the bullet and get in bed with in the very near future.

Now that's bittersweet Irony. Not too mention, a demonstrative indicator of what a waste of time american preoccupation with enemies of democracy is.

why don't you catch the guy in the cave first and then try to get things sorted?
I swear, if we canucks get him, we are so gonna rub it in your faces. :p

TaiChiBob

10-18-2006, 01:22 PM

Greetings..

unkokusai: How ironic that you are so quick to use the "rolleyes" icon.. when yours are so tightly shut.

Be well.. and, try looking past the indoctrination sequence.. the truth of it is sobering..

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 01:24 PM

This is the real purtid mess as you so "eloquently" put it. thousands of American lives lost for a pointless self serving and completely ineffectual war, that actually had the opposite effects of it intended goals.

10 U.S. troops killed during one day in Iraq
4 GIs die in roadside bomb; with 69 slain, October on pace for grim record

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15314207/?GT1=8618

human life is so completely and utterly meaningling to the Bush white house.

David Jamieson

10-18-2006, 01:25 PM

bob, you must realize by now that unko is just a troll and alwasy has been here.

no shortage of contraryness for the sake of it. Honestly, i don't know why these guys come here. I guess they just like to see how riled people get when they make their oh so shocking remarks.

and so, for unko he gets a golden rolleyes trophy! because he is so witty....well, at least halfway there. :p

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 01:29 PM

well if you think this is hysteria then call me chicken ****ing little dude. .

That's exactly what I'm calling you.

David Jamieson

10-18-2006, 01:31 PM

...and here's ted with your matching pearl necklace!

tell us about the necklace ted!

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 01:32 PM

no wonder your so brainwashed.

I knew this was coming. Typical liberal rhetoric.

Let's see, anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal point of view is:

-brainwashed

-asleep

-blind

-dumb

-inbred

-lost

-ignorant

well, the list goes on and on. :rolleyes:

David Jamieson

10-18-2006, 01:34 PM

Let's see, anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal point of view is:

-brainwashed

-asleep

-blind

-dumb

-inbred

-lost

-ignorant

well, the list goes on and on. :rolleyes:

I think she's starting to get it!

Fu-Pow

10-18-2006, 01:40 PM

For terrorists? Yes, I am.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 01:43 PM

That's exactly what I'm calling you.

well thanks not that i care about your opinion in the least at this point. you should just leave us "liberal" fanatics to our squalor since you have absolutely nothing to say. you contended not one of the points that was said. you just attempted to dismiss the comments of 10 or so people with your "witty" one liner. but no one is that funny.

i notice with Bush supporters that the more they try to bury their heads in the sand the more the world crumbling around them starts to seep into that hole. your arguments become more vitriolic and irrational, so im not surprised. we live in and attack ad culture anyway.

you must be right though. we all must be batsh!t insane. yea all 65% of the disapproving public.

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 01:44 PM

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Well, then you need to figure out which you think al quaeda and their ilk are and act accordingly. They sure will.

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 01:47 PM

i notice with Bush supporters that the more they try to bury their heads in the sand.

Ah, there's another one. "head buried in the sand"

Fu-Pow

10-18-2006, 01:58 PM

Well, then you need to figure out which you think al quaeda and their ilk are and act accordingly. They sure will.

The reason I bring it up is that its never a clear cut issue...us vs. them..... as Bush admin would have you believe.

There's the little issue of America's foreign policy. The best thing that you could really do to fight terrorism is to treat the people of other countries with some ****ing dignity.

But we don't have to....we're Amorica...the last great superpower and we just steamroll anybody that disagrees with us.

Then we wonder why people want to blow us up?

Look....terrorism is just that...spreading terror. Who has spread more terror....Al Qaeda....or the Bush adminstration (and the ****ing media for that matter)?

Who's doing more to destroy "the American way of Life"....Bush admin or Al Qaeda?

Al Qaeda is no real threat to our national security, they're like militant graffiti artists.

Its the administration that is USING terrorism to spread fear and to turn the people into reactive little sheep...to their own greedy ends.

Wake up and smell the ****fest.

The party line is that "radical islamic fascism" is the most important issue facing the day. Really...its not the economy, taxes, social security, enviromental destruction, special interests in Washington, the decline of the U.S. middle class, prescription drug costs, dependence on foreign oil, the cost of education,....etc. etc. etc.

Look over here, look over there...while the government basically gets away with undermining everything our country is about.

Pathetic.

FP

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 01:59 PM

well u started it. nots my problem if you can't handle like actions.

if you wanna turn this into a civilized debate im all for it. i would rather that in actuality. but if you wanna continue to trade insults because you dont agree with whats being said then thats fine too. it wont stop me from posting what i have to though.

and i love how your all of a sudden the victim after throwing the first stone. thats classic.

Becca

10-18-2006, 02:05 PM

why don't you catch the guy in the cave first and then try to get things sorted?
I swear, if we canucks get him, we are so gonna rub it in your faces. :p
By all means, get him first. My ego isn't so fragile that people need to die just so I can say "I'm the best."

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 02:08 PM

lol i agree. catch the sonova*****. of course that'd be hard if he's dead already. hes best used as the boogeyman. if we did catch him any legitimacy for being in the Middle East would be gone i think, and im sure the Bush admin isn't complaining about the off hand home video he mails to us everyone once in a while.

Merryprankster

10-18-2006, 05:06 PM

its the truth Merry. if you can't handle that, then i dont know what to tell you. this effects all of us. i made this thread for people angry enough to do sumthin about it.

The bill passing is the truth. What it means, w/respect to impact is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, no matter how wrong it is.

And you made this thread because you felt a need to voice your opinion, which is fine. But you certainly didn't do it "for people angry enough to do sumthin about it."

I am appalled at the bill. I have nothing but continued remorse and disgust for this administration. It has managed to make the strategically and tactically wrong decisions at almost every crucial juncture.

But that does NOT mean the system is imploding. It does NOT mean my rights have evaporated, and it does NOT mean we are a police state. People throw that term, or raise its spectre, around so much - and with absolutely NO basis for doing so, nor with any idea what that entails - that it reminds me of the law regarding internet conversations and Hitler - "As the length of any thread increases, the probability of comparing the subject/object to Hitler/Nazis approaches 1."

omarthefish

10-18-2006, 05:23 PM

lol@Unk's feeble attempt to troll.

He's usually ok at it but this isssue is really too serious to get caught up flaming.

No definintion of "enemy of the state" = complete authoritarian power to the prez.

Fu-Pow

10-18-2006, 05:29 PM

But that does NOT mean the system is imploding. It does NOT mean my rights have evaporated, and it does NOT mean we are a police state.

Not yet....we just need a test case....an American citizen deemed an "enemy combatant" tortured, tried in a closed military tribunal and sentenced to death.

Sure it will be contested but look at the make up of the Supreme Court.....do you really think they will declare it unconstitutional?

The system is already broken...and its only a matter of time before it implodes.

People throw that term, or raise its spectre, around so much - and with absolutely NO basis for doing so, nor with any idea what that entails - that it reminds me of the law regarding internet conversations and Hitler - "As the length of any thread increases, the probability of comparing the subject/object to Hitler/Nazis approaches 1."

We already live in a police state.

omarthefish

10-18-2006, 05:34 PM

But that does NOT mean the system is imploding. It does NOT mean my rights have evaporated, and it does NOT mean we are a police state. People throw that term, or raise its spectre, around so much - and with absolutely NO basis for doing so, nor with any idea what that entails - that it reminds me of the law regarding internet conversations and Hitler - "As the length of any thread increases, the probability of comparing the subject/object to Hitler/Nazis approaches 1."

I ask you the same question I was going to ask Unk.

What exactly does it take then?

Is there anything left? How many secret prisons? How many breaches of the Geneva conventions? Does the new bill need to be used to actually snatch your grandma out of here bed and whisk her off to an internment camp before you begin to be alarmed?

btw, the Hitler/Natzi reference came on page two for this thread. Thank you, Scott. Post 23.

Funny how in THIS case Hitler was mentioned as a parralel by someone arguing that we should all take a chill pill. None of us in righterous indignation brought it up.

There is so much irony in this post I don't know where to start:

Hitler gained the power and imposed the destruction and genocide he did because good people did nothing to stop him when his threat was lesser. In general, our criminal justice system is reactive; Bush is attempting to be proactive. This proactiveness is intended to protect lives, not squash civil rights. There is a political danger in this. Think of the position Bush is in! If he does too little there will be another attack and he will be considered responsible and criticized for doing too little. If he does too much then he is considered to be trampling on civil rights in order to over-extend the power of government. It is a no-win situation politically. His first priority is the protection of the American people. If he appears to over-extend and there are no more attacks then his over-extension is viewed as unnecessary and not given the credit for protecting the citizenry.

We are on the path to internal collapse in every single way I can see. It's hardly irreversable so far but he have ALREADY completely destroyed America's position in the world as a symbol for freedom and democracy. That's just fact. We are the bad guys. THAT's why we have to worry about terrorists. No country in the world looks to America as representative of anything but arrogance and military might. With all the secret wars in South American and proxy actions in the middle east, even with all the very nasty stuff we have done in the past, we still managed to be "the good guys" on the world stage. When we talked about spreading our "way of life" it made sense. People DID want to be like us. We oversaw elections to ensure they were truly democratic but NOW we don't even pass our own standards.

That's just a fact.

Do a little world traveling and you can see. Step outside the borders of America and you find out really quickly that the entire image of America, what it represents, who we are....it's all gone.

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 06:03 PM

We are on the path to internal collapse in every single way I can see.

he have ALREADY completely destroyed America's position in the world as a symbol for freedom and democracy.

That's just fact.

We are the bad guys.

THAT's why we have to worry about terrorists.

No country in the world looks to America as representative of anything but arrogance and military might.

That's just a fact.

Do a little world traveling and you can see.

Don't you see how all that hyperbole makes it hard to take you seriously? "Yeah man, yeah!" among other extreme liberals might make you feel good but its all masturbation.

"What I say is a fact, and if you don't agree you are a zombie/pawn/fool/etc." is pointless and precludes any further discussion. I like the "Do a little world traveling" bit! Classic liberal attitude, as if no one who has "seen the world" could possibly disagree with their 'enlightened' view.

I say again.....:rolleyes:

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 06:05 PM

you should just leave us "liberal" fanatics to our squalor

That's exactly what you want. You want to hold your little circle-jerk where you all 'affirm' each other in your oh-so-dramatic wailing and rending of cloth.

Pointless.

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 06:13 PM

The reason I bring it up is that its never a clear cut issue...us vs. them.....

Al Qaeda is no real threat to our national security, they're like militant graffiti artists.

So, the fact is that you DO think it's clear cut, and you think America is the bad guy. I hope you can live with your choice.

As for "militant graffiti artists," that is so deeply offensive in the face of those who died on 9/11 and in Bali, and in Spain, etc. that I couldn't possibly say "**** you" often enough to get the point across to you as to how I feel about it. :mad:

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 06:15 PM

if we did catch him any legitimacy for being in the Middle East would be gone i think, .

So if we caught him all other terrorists would just disappear like magic? :confused:

omarthefish

10-18-2006, 06:20 PM

Don't you see how all that hyperbole makes it hard to take you seriously? "Yeah man, yeah!" among other extreme liberals might make you feel good but its all masturbation.

"What I say is a fact, and if you don't agree you are a zombie/pawn/fool/etc." is pointless and precludes any further discussion. I like the "Do a little world traveling" bit! Classic liberal attitude, as if no one who has "seen the world" could possibly disagree with their 'enlightened' view.

I say again.....:rolleyes:

I didn't actually call anyone names. That's your own addition. Not part of my argument.

Again, what part of my "hyperbole" is not true? A little projection here? You are the one throwing add hominems around. You entered the thread with one and you are finishing up this post with one. "liberal hysteria", "classic liberal attitude". Can't attack the argument so you attack the person.

Why is international travel a "liberal" activity? Never heard that before. You've done some. Does that make you a "classic liberal"?

I didn't realize that civil liberties were a "liberal value". So the conservative position is that they aren't that important? *scratches head*

How is radical restructuring of our legal system, elimination of something as fundamental as habeas corpus a conservative move? That makes no sense whatsoever. :confused:

Put away your rolling eyes and your ad hominem attacks and see if you actually have anything to say on the argument. So far all we've got from your end is smileys and name calling.

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 06:38 PM

Can't attack the argument so you attack the person. .

You're missing the point. I have no interest in attacking your argument. Nor you personally, per se. It's the pervasive attitude itself that I am addressing.

If people are opposed to a law, that's fine. If you disagree with me that's fine too. But "Jack-boots are coming" "WE are the bad guys" "It's our own fault when our enemies seek our destruction" is just a ridiculous, nihilistic attitude and the more you liberal work each other up into a lather the more difficult it becomes to take you seriously.

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 06:44 PM

quote by unkokusai>
"So if we caught him all other terrorists would just disappear like magic?"

if we went about the entire military offense the correct way, yes. life would be a lot less complicated for America. Bin Laden is the leader of Al Quaida, the only known connection to 9/11 that we're completely sure about. everything else is just scapegoating and speculation........oh wait but a couple of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi Arabian. we're in bed with Saudi Arabia, so it doesn't even count does it?

quote by unkokusai>
"As for "militant graffiti artists," that is so deeply offensive in the face of those who died on 9/11 that I couldn't possibly say "**** you" often enough to get the point across to you as to how I feel about it. "

for stating clear evidence that the Bush admin has been more detrimental to American society than any perceived enemies that we actually have Fu-Pow gets accused of insulting the victims of 9/11? you've got to be kidding me.... its a metaphor for the relativity of the present situation we potentially face because of the decisions made by Bush, compared to the actual fact of the effects of the 9/11 attacks. i dont see him as denigrating the terrorist attacks or downplaying the gravity of what happened that day. but face facts. we've done more harm to ourselves as a nation than any militant islamists ever will.

quote by unkokusai>
"Don't you see how all that hyperbole makes it hard to take you seriously? "Yeah man, yeah!" among other extreme liberals might make you feel good but its all masturbation.

"What I say is a fact, and if you don't agree you are a zombie/pawn/fool/etc." is pointless and precludes any further discussion. I like the "Do a little world traveling" bit! Classic liberal attitude, as if no one who has "seen the world" could possibly disagree with their 'enlightened' view."

the very first comment you made was an insult to every belief thats been expressed on this thread. so dont try to play the victim now. i bet you dont even know the political affiliation of even half the posters in this thread but yet you dismissively attempt to label everyone liberals. dont point fingers and whine about the actions you used in your very first post to look down on everyone, without actually trying to debate any of the issues you supposedly disagree with.

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 06:58 PM

quote by Merryprankster>
"The bill passing is the truth. What it means, w/respect to impact is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, no matter how wrong it is."

well for 1. prove that my opinions are wrong. debate is the hallmark of the democratic process after all. :)

quote by Merryprankster>
"And you made this thread because you felt a need to voice your opinion, which is fine. But you certainly didn't do it "for people angry enough to do sumthin about it." "

and 2 i do infact plan to do sumthin about it. whatever i can. whatever is in my ability to do. im gonna write my state representative. im gonna make as many people as i can aware of this. hell ill protest if i need to. its the American way. whatever is necessary. most importantly im gonna make my vote count come election time. i hope everyone else does the same.

quote by Merryprankster>
"I am appalled at the bill. I have nothing but continued remorse and disgust for this administration. It has managed to make the strategically and tactically wrong decisions at almost every crucial juncture.

But that does NOT mean the system is imploding. It does NOT mean my rights have evaporated, and it does NOT mean we are a police state. People throw that term, or raise its spectre, around so much - and with absolutely NO basis for doing so, nor with any idea what that entails."

if im wrong which i know im not, then it'll vindicate everything that you've just said.

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 07:08 PM

I didn't actually call anyone names. That's your own addition. Not part of my argument.

Again, what part of my "hyperbole" is not true? A little projection here? You are the one throwing add hominems around. You entered the thread with one and you are finishing up this post with one. "liberal hysteria", "classic liberal attitude". Can't attack the argument so you attack the person.

Why is international travel a "liberal" activity? Never heard that before. You've done some. Does that make you a "classic liberal"?

I didn't realize that civil liberties were a "liberal value". So the conservative position is that they aren't that important? *scratches head*

How is radical restructuring of our legal system, elimination of something as fundamental as habeas corpus a conservative move? That makes no sense whatsoever. :confused:

Put away your rolling eyes and your ad hominem attacks and see if you actually have anything to say on the argument. So far all we've got from your end is smileys and name calling.

omar is right. who says liberalism is a bad thing? im not a liberal, but i'm also not a conversative, and i respect some of the beliefs of both parties. i respect plenty of conservatives and conversative ideas. but certainly not those of this administration nor most of the politicians currectly in office. i dont believe they represent either side. and they make a mockery of both. i believe people have fairly centrist and moderate views covering the entire political spectrum. but the problems is the ones with extreme views are currently in power.

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 07:15 PM

this is the kind of insanity thats going on in the world right now. im not naive or irrational enough to think that the United States caused this travesty. thats just silly and irresonsible. but i do believe Congress signing this bill sets a bad precedent and poor example for the rest of the world. and it certainly wont help things like this from happening in the future.

Judge: Ethiopian forces killed 193 unarmed protesters

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/10/18/ethiopia.massacre.ap/index.html

"NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- A senior Ethiopian judge appointed by his government to investigate election-related unrest says security forces shot, beat and strangled to death 193 unarmed protesters last year."

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 07:51 PM

Why is international travel a "liberal" activity? .

Yeah, that was the point. It's NOT, but some folks speak of it as if it were. As if traveling MUST have the magical ability to "open the eyes" to the unquestionable truth of the divine liberal vision."

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 07:55 PM

quote by unkokusai>
"So if we caught him all other terrorists would just disappear like magic?"

if we went about the entire military offense the correct way, yes. .

Ok, that's about all I need to know about you. :rolleyes:

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 07:59 PM

omarthefish

10-18-2006, 08:02 PM

*groan*

Now Unkokusai is making legitimate points. blech. Not really a counterpoint to what I was saying but he's right there. I feel so......used.

omar is right. who says liberalism is a bad thing? im not a liberal, but i'm also not a conversative, and i respect some of the beliefs of both parties. i respect plenty of conservatives and conversative ideas. but certainly not those of this administration nor most of the politicians currectly in office. i dont believe they represent either side. and they make a mockery of both. i believe people have fairly centrist and moderate views covering the entire political spectrum. but the problems is the ones with extreme views are currently in power.

*sigh*

This is what I mean. I wasn't actually advocating liberalism. Apparently it came off like that. Even though I AM a liberal (by todays standards) my point about getting outside the fishbowl of the USA had nothing to do with "broadening horizons" or understanding other cultures. This thing is waaaaay beyong "liberal vs. conservative". True conservatives are just as ****ed.

I just meant that when you need to get out of the country to really see and feel how we are viewed from the outside. Live without Fox and the other US media sources for a bit. I was only reffering to one single aspect, the fact that the US is not longer any kind of heroic image. I watched it change. When I came to China in 2000, the US was still symbolic of all that is good. I was proud to announce that I was American. Chinese were excited to be friends with a "real live American". The Japanese, Korean and European people who I was studying Chinese with at Waiyuan all pretty much had universally positive views of us "yanks" even if some of the Europeans probably thought they were much cooler.

That has all changed in the short short span of 6 years. Nobody is excited to meet Americans anymore. People approach shyly now and ask me things with hesitation. They ask me if they can ask a "sensitive questipn". People used to ask me about food and movies and rock&roll. Now they ask me about Bush and war and why do we like to fight so much.

At home there is a debate. Abroad, everyone knows Bush is the bad guy. There's not debate. There's nobody out here supporting his actions. It's not democrat vs. republican. It's "American conservatives" vs. everyone else in the world.

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 08:13 PM

is anyone else watching the townhall meeting on CNN hosted by Lou Dobbs?

that man tells it like it is. :D

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 08:15 PM

im not gonna feed into it unkokusai. if you dont wanna have a civilized conversation and only use personal attacks as a diversion. then your right. we dont need to be communicating at all. and you dont need to be a part of this thread either. its too bad you had to resort to trolling. :rolleyes:

You are now on record as saying that if we caught OBL, all other terrorists would disappear like magic. Honestly, how would you expect someone to react to that position?

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 08:17 PM

*groan*

Now Unkokusai is making legitimate points. blech. Not really a counterpoint to what I was saying but he's right there. I feel so......used.

*sigh*

This is what I mean. I wasn't actually advocating liberalism. Apparently it came off like that. Even though I AM a liberal (by todays standards) my point about getting outside the fishbowl of the USA had nothing to do with "broadening horizons" or understanding other cultures. This thing is waaaaay beyong "liberal vs. conservative". True conservatives are just as ****ed.

I just meant that when you need to get out of the country to really see and feel how we are viewed from the outside. Live without Fox and the other US media sources for a bit. I was only reffering to one single aspect, the fact that the US is not longer any kind of heroic image. I watched it change. When I came to China in 2000, the US was still symbolic of all that is good. I was proud to announce that I was American. Chinese were excited to be friends with a "real live American". The Japanese, Korean and European people who I was studying Chinese with at Waiyuan all pretty much had universally positive views of us "yanks" even if some of the Europeans probably thought they were much cooler.

That has all changed in the short short span of 6 years. Nobody is excited to meet Americans anymore. People approach shyly now and ask me things with hesitation. They ask me if they can ask a "sensitive questipn". People used to ask me about food and movies and rock&roll. Now they ask me about Bush and war and why do we like to fight so much.

At home there is a debate. Abroad, everyone knows Bush is the bad guy. There's not debate. There's nobody out here supporting his actions. It's not democrat vs. republican. It's "American conservatives" vs. everyone else in the world.

thats essentially what i was saying.

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 08:18 PM

You are now on record as saying that if we caught OBL, all other terrorists would disappear like magic. Honestly, how would you expect someone to react to that position?

apparently you didn't actually read my second post where i clarified what i meant by the first before you commented.

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 08:25 PM

when you need to get out of the country to really see and feel how we are viewed from the outside.

Now this is something that could be worth talking about! It strikes me that folks abroad get the most leftish of American and international media images about the US, and having not much else to go on adopt attitudes that very rarely accord with say, middle-America.

And I don't know about everyone loving America in 2000. I was in China in 1994 and while I met many great folks who were kind and respectful of my homeland, admiration of America was far from universal.

And when I travel nowadays I find folks as diverse and generally thoughtful as ever. I guess if I were prone to traveling in western europe I might find a different crowd. Which is why...

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 08:29 PM

apparently you didn't actually read my second post where i clarified what i meant by the first before you commented.

In other words, you now realize that what you said was too silly to stand by?

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 08:30 PM

no im saying your comprehension skillz are lacking.

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 08:43 PM

we went over this before dozens of times in other threads. but let me reiterate my entire point about the alleged goals of the war on terror.

ill keep it short though. the entire reasoning behind mobilizing our troops and deploying them in Middle East was to catch the guilty parties involved in the attack on the world trade center. the only people agreed upon by our intelligence agencies and the ones around the world with any credibility, to have any connection whatsoever to the planning and implementation of the attack was Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Sadam Hussein was knowingly and wrongfully connected to Al Quaeda as a conspirator and financer of the 9/11 attacks. this was an entire fabrication to gain support for the war. the talk about WMDs came later. this was also proven false and knowingly ignored. then the story was changed to freeing the Iraqi people and spreading democracy in their country. so basically every reasoning leading up to our occupation of Iraq is pretty much illegal by international standards. meaning our one and only legitimate reason for being in the Middle East is to catch or kill Bin Laden and all members of Al Quaeda. nothing more nothing less.

i hope thats more clear.

unkokusai

10-18-2006, 09:15 PM

our one and only legitimate reason for being in the Middle East is to catch or kill Bin Laden and all members of Al Quaeda. nothing more nothing less.

i hope thats more clear.

That is clearly YOUR opinion...

omarthefish

10-18-2006, 09:20 PM

Fuxn,

Need to tone it down a bit.

I don't even know what Unko really feels on this topic. All I can tell is that he's breaking down the argument. You're tone tends to undermine you.

Unkokusai,

The admiration of America was, I admit, not "universal" but there WAS a consensus. At the very least it was a massive majority and the people who were anti-american were mostly just annoyed with the US, hardly a vicious indictment. Nowadays people are seriously afraid of what we might do. I give you that my experiences might be different if I was traveling in Europe instead of China but one thing is for sure and that is that we no longer have even the semblance of a moral high ground. We may have never had one for real but at least would could take advantage of the appearance of one Now that is gone. We have no leverage to criticise any other countries on human rights. We have no political leverage to cause countries to disarm or at least scale things down. We are erasing what used to make us different from the Soviet Union or from any number of banana republics down south.

We now:

-keep secret prisons.
-arrest people without jut cause.
-torture on a regular basis.
-break the geneva conventions regularly.
-are moving to make this all legal. In other words, it's all unapologetic. No one is even trying to cover up anymore. Their trying to legitimize it and IT'S NOT OK.

omarthefish

10-18-2006, 09:23 PM

. . .meaning our one and only legitimate reason for being in the Middle East is to catch or kill Bin Laden and all members of Al Quaeda. nothing more nothing less.

i hope thats more clear.

You realize that even the administration has now admitted that there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq whatsoever right?

Ben Ladden and Sadaam were enemies. Most of the terrorist activity in Iraq only started AFTER we invaded. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhR04RkBFhs

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 09:49 PM

i dont have a tone. you can't tell my tone based on my posts. and hes not breaking down anyones arguments. hes picking and choosing little bits and pieces of posts and then making off-handed remarks. he actually made 2 replies to the dozens of point made against what hes saying.

of course how he feels about the topic isn't known. he hasn't actually been expressing how he feels about anything thats been said. i want him to. i been trying to get him to do so. i want to discuss things and show why i think this way or why i have these opinions. im not pulling them out of my ass thats for sure. he would rather simply say "oh your wrong" or "thats just liberal nonsense" and not state why. mixed in with snide remarks.

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 09:57 PM

You realize that even the administration has now admitted that there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq whatsoever right?

Ben Ladden and Sadaam were enemies. Most of the terrorist activity in Iraq only started AFTER we invaded. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhR04RkBFhs

lmao yea i seen that on the Daily Show. thats priceless :D

FuXnDajenariht

10-18-2006, 09:59 PM

That is clearly YOUR opinion...

no its not just my opinion. i can give you ****loads of evidence if you want bro.

omarthefish

10-19-2006, 02:13 AM

It's official:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/

In particular, just special for those of you who argued that we were being melodramatic, and this is from msnbc, hardly some left wing radical rag:

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

Our president is now above the law. He has the same power to arrest and torture on a whim as Stalin, Mao or any other non-democratic leader.

We are no longer protected by law from the whims of the president. He now has a carte blanche to arrest and detain indefinatel anyone who opposes him.

TaiChiBob

10-19-2006, 04:40 AM

Greetings..

unkokusai: <Pssst.. Go ahead, trust me.. it's okay.. drink the Kool-Aid>

Nighty nite..

TaiChiBob

10-19-2006, 05:41 AM

Greetings..

Now that that's taken care of... i don't want to sound like the Reps or Dems, liberals or conservatives are much different, but... you've gotta admit that the current administration has a plethora of unsavory characters in its cast.. heck, we need a score-card just to keep up with the numbers of "conservatives" with their hands in the till, or elsewhere.. it's beginning to look like a systemic problem..

How do we rationalize the leadership of the US deceiving its people into a war that has wrecked the economy, tarnished our image, and cost as many American lives as the event that started it?.. How often has the US held other nations accountable to the Geneva Conventions only to dismiss them for the current administration's agendas?

I could not be more proud of our armed forces, they took an oath and honor it.. regardless of the failure of the leadership to to validate its purpose and reasoning.. The US military, with proper leadership, is the most effective and respected fighting force on the planet.. technologically superior, possessed of courage and spirit second to none.. The US has the ways and the means to conclude any conflict, it needs the leadership to do so.. Although i was an anti-war activist when i was drafted, i recognized that it was the gift of this great nation to allow me to express my opinions and beliefs openly (well, except for that nasty FBI file on me, but...).. i was criticized for not going to Canada by my fellow activists, but.. i felt that to turn my back on the calling of my country would, in reality, be turning my back on the freedom for others to express themselves equally.. This administration has disgraced everyone that served this nation in defense of the freedoms that are presently being discarded in the guise of "security"..

I have no "party affiliation", i support the person that best represents my beliefs AND upholds the American Ideal.. The current Bush administration fails on both counts.. The Bush administration is not a police state, but it is laying the foundation for one.. i will not go into a long discourse, but those of you that are truly concerned citizens already know of the intricate levels of international networks the administration is developing in support of this agenda.. to deny this is a moral failure of awareness.. The American Dream will not long survive without the intense scrutiny and accountability demanded by its citizens..

A most relevant quote by an author unknown..

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar. It seems that the Bush administration may well have authored these prophetic words.. they have modeled their leadership in its echoing darkness..

Be vigilant of our freedoms, protect them.. let no man or Office diminish the Ideals for which America stands..

Be well..

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 09:09 AM

Greetings..

unkokusai: <Pssst.. Go ahead, trust me.. it's okay.. drink the Kool-Aid>

Nighty nite..

More of the same..........:rolleyes:

AJM

10-19-2006, 09:47 AM

Gee, thanks for the advice, newbie. I'll be sure to give it all the consideration it deserves.

My name is Tony Mac. I've been on this board for four years. I've been a martial artist for thirty nine of my fifty four years . You act like the south end of a north bound horse.

TaiChiBob

10-19-2006, 09:56 AM

Greetings..

unkokusai: Perhaps, if you could actually add your perspective, we might be able to engage in "dialogue".. you know, where we each present our perspectives and look for common grounds from which to improve the current dismal situation..

Now this is something that could be worth talking about! It strikes me that folks abroad get the most leftish of American and international media images about the US, and having not much else to go on adopt attitudes that very rarely accord with say, middle-America. Let's examine the difficulty the Bush Administration had with assembling a coalition to invade Iraq, and the disassembly of the limited coalition we currently have.. The first Iraq invasion had broad support, attainable goals and an exit stragety.. fast-forward, the current Iraq occupation is aimless and creating more problems than it wishes it had solved..

You have failed to make any case supporting your initial critique of liberal perspectives.. Quips and icons are empty, state your case.. If you think Bush is the answer, say so.. back it up.. i am not closed minded, if someone can demonstrate the wisdom of this administration's agendas, i'm all ears.. Ultimately, i will support anyone that can reclaim America's dignity..

Be well..

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 10:47 AM

My name is Tony Mac. I've been on this board for four years. I've been a martial artist for thirty nine of my fifty four years . You act like the south end of a north bound horse.

Another gem for the file! Keep 'em comin' kid. :rolleyes:

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 10:49 AM

If you think Bush is the answer, say so.. back it up.. ..

You keep missing the point...

FuXnDajenariht

10-19-2006, 11:19 AM

you have no point my son. thats the problem.

hey Omar you still think he deserves a pat on the back for what is clearly a case of trolling?

lol maybe he'll shut up if i give him a cookie instead.... :D

FuXnDajenariht

10-19-2006, 11:20 AM

yea thats not condescending in the least. calling a 54 year old man 'kid'... :rolleyes:

David Jamieson

10-19-2006, 11:35 AM

I dunno, I am guessing there is a percentage of america that likes anal because they sure do get enough of it from their office of the president these days.

FuXnDajenariht

10-19-2006, 11:45 AM

lol yea and atleast the gays have the decency to put a ring on your finger or atleast take you out to dinner. :D

i guess Republicans have commitment issues. no wonder they wanna ban getting hitched.

splinter

10-19-2006, 11:47 AM

You keep missing the point...

What exactly IS your point? I haven't actually seen you post one yet.

Fu-Pow

10-19-2006, 12:02 PM

So, the fact is that you DO think it's clear cut, and you think America is the bad guy. I hope you can live with your choice.

I think the American government is the bad guy and apathetic American citizens made it that way.

As for "militant graffiti artists," that is so deeply offensive in the face of those who died on 9/11 and in Bali, and in Spain, etc. that I couldn't possibly say "**** you" often enough to get the point across to you as to how I feel about it. :mad:

Its not what they did that is on par with 'graffiti', obviously its more serious than that...and people died.

The thing is that Al Qaeda is represented by the Bush administration as some kind of highly organized militant group creeping in the shadows...like they're the communists looking to take over the world or something...ridiculous!!

In reality the mentality and organization of Al Qaeda is on par with a tribe of adolescent boys who want to make a statement...that's why I'm making the comparison to graffiti.

Whatever Al Qaeda has done Bush has turned it to his own purposes...from what I've read the Bush admin basically let 9/11 happen....its been a downhill slide ever since that day for our country.

9/11 has been used as pretext for a costly and unecessary war, tax breaks for the super wealthy that congress passed right after 9/11 and the erosion of our civil liberties in the name of national security.

So really the terrorists have "won"....but they did not "win' because of their actions but because the Bush admin has amplified those actions into wide spread terror (ie fear) and that has allowed them to basically get away with murder.

As an aside, this really doesn't have much to do with Republican vs. Democrat either. It has to do with the consolidation of power, from the many to the few....from a republican democracy to an authoritarian regime.

Really the degradation of governmental checks and balances has been happening since the first two world wars when congress gave away too much power to a "war-time" president.

What Bush admin has tried to do is to push us into a continual state of "war" and thus the people into a continual state of fear. The "war on terrorism" is a war that can never really be won in a nation vs nation sense. Its genius really when you think about it (although the concept is clearly laid out in George Orwell's "1984").
A "war" that can never be won. (reminds me of Reagan's "war on drugs.")

As long as we treat others unfairly in the world they will want to get revenge. That's the only way to really win the "war" on terror, to treat other's fairly. If the Bush admin really wanted to "win the war" that is what they would do.

But they really don't want to because it would interfere with their continued consolidation of power in the office of the president.

FP

David Jamieson

10-19-2006, 12:04 PM

he doesn't have a point. unless you count the one under his hat. :p

TaiChiBob

10-19-2006, 12:54 PM

Greetings..

unkokusai: You indicate that i "keep missing the point".. please tell me what that point is.. i am genuinely interested, if it is more practical than my current perspective, i am compelled to revise my perspective.. but, until someone can demonstrate a more practical approach, my perspective continues to serve me well..

Be well...

BoulderDawg

10-19-2006, 12:54 PM

The thing is that Al Qaeda is represented by the Bush administration as some kind of highly organized militant group creeping in the shadows...like they're the communists looking to take over the world or something...ridiculous!!

In reality the mentality and organization of Al Qaeda is on par with a tribe of adolescent boys who want to make a statement...that's why I'm making the comparison to graffiti.

Good point! Bush keeps talking about the "war" against these people.....War against who? A bunch of guys with 40-50 year old guns?

I still get a good laugh when Bush tries to scare us with that Al Qaeda training film. The one where they show these guys walking monkey bars and climbing over obstacles....and sometimes they'll even slow it down so that it appears more scary.:D

To me that looks like a playground at a middle school!

Fu-Pow

10-19-2006, 01:26 PM

Not that these guys can't cause alot damage. Obviously they can and did but what I'm trying to illustrate is their motivation is not to "take over the world." Its to make a statement basically through violent graffiti....that statement is basically "leave us the **** alone!"

The Bush administrations answer to that message is basically to inflame the situation even more.....by invading two predominantly muslim countries.....afghanistan and Iraq and by doing nothing to appease the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc, etc.

Now why would they do that other than to fan the flames of potential terrorists? In order to breed new terrorists that justify their "war on terror.' Its the equivalent of being stung by a hornet so you go over and kick the nest in some kind of revenge.

I really think at this point that the Bush admin knew about 9/11. They might not have known where or when or what form or scale the attack would take but from everything I've read they knew something was afoot and backed off to let it happen. (BTW, this is not without precedent, its pretty much an established fact that the US government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen as a way to buoy public support for entry into WWII.)

At the time the Bush admin was under a lot of fire for its failed domestic policies and Bush's dismal first year in the white house. There was not a good pretext to go to "war" which would take the pressure off them at home. There was no one left really to fight seeing as the US is the only superpower left. (Note: "Radical Islamic Fascism" has taken the place of communism after WWII.)

So why not let something happen?.....granted, I don't think they knew the scale that it would take....they probably though it would be more like the african embassy bombing or the USS cole. (Remember Bush's odd rxn after he was informed of the World Trade Center attack....it was like "oh ****" they went too far...what are we going to do now.)

However, despite the initial shock 9/11 ended up being an even bigger boon to move their neo-con agenda along than anyting they could have imagined.

People don't want to believe **** like this and some might call it paranoid but I don't put anything past our government or the power brokers in the Bush administration.

FP

BoulderDawg

10-19-2006, 01:51 PM

I haven't heard the "Take over the world" story line from the Bush admin yet.

I thought the old stand-by was "They are jealous of our freedom."

I seriously doubt that he knew about 9/11. Of course it can be shown that the admin knew about threats against America. However that's the way the game is played. My guess is the US is threatened probably on a daily basis. A lot of this is disinformation just to see how the US will act. Such as the most recent threat of bombing football stadiums.

Of course the US will occasionally use these as their own propaganda:

"Look Here! We received this threat and the heros over at Homeland Security put a stop to it!"

Fu-Pow

10-19-2006, 02:20 PM

I haven't heard the "Take over the world" story line from the Bush admin yet.

I thought the old stand-by was "They are jealous of our freedom."

I think its stated more like "a threat to our way of life." When really I think the Bush admin is a bigger threat to our way of life.

I seriously doubt that he knew about 9/11. Of course it can be shown that the admin knew about threats against America. However that's the way the game is played. My guess is the US is threatened probably on a daily basis. A lot of this is disinformation just to see how the US will act. Such as the most recent threat of bombing football stadiums.

True, but the FBI dropped the ball big time on this one. From what I've heard a lot of it came from above when agents were told to look the other way by higher ups. Who knows where their orders came from?

Of course the US will occasionally use these as their own propaganda:

"Look Here! We received this threat and the heros over at Homeland Security put a stop to it!"

Definitely true. Of course we have no way to verify if there ever was a threat or if it was just propaganda. I find it odd that everytime some kind of scandalous news comes out that would threaten the Bush admin that there's suddenly some vague intelligence about a threat that is soon abaited by our wonderful Dept of Homeland Security...of course.... after the stench has cleared.

That's what I'm talking about....the politics of fear.

FP

FuXnDajenariht

10-19-2006, 03:05 PM

the terror alert was recently elevated to yellow by the way.

get your duct tape ready boys.

KC Elbows

10-19-2006, 03:47 PM

By yellow alert, it's way too late for duct tape. According to the manual, at yellow you need to put on Fox and put your hands to the screen. Only the anchors at Fox have the authority to directly channel Bush's full power and save you. This will only work if you trust Bush: you must not succumb to such deviltry as to wonder whether there's a word so long he cannot add a syllable to it. Do not doubt that He can!

It is inevititelligible

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 06:10 PM

I dunno, I am guessing there is a percentage of america that likes anal because they sure do get enough of it from their office of the president these days.

You see? There it is again. Do you think that is the foundation of a discussion of politics? Or is it just an excuse for you and your 'buddies' to huddle together and giggle behind your hands? :rolleyes:

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 06:12 PM

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 06:14 PM

Of course we have no way to verify if there ever was a threat or if it was just propaganda. I find it odd that everytime some kind of scandalous news comes out that would threaten the Bush admin that there's suddenly some vague intelligence about a threat that is soon abaited by our wonderful Dept of Homeland Security...of course.... after the stench has cleared.

That's what I'm talking about....the politics of fear.

FP

And what would your reaction be if there were a possibility of an impending attack, it was played down so as not to upset your type, and then the attack actually came off? How would you react to that?

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 06:18 PM

Good point! Bush keeps talking about the "war" against these people.....War against who? A bunch of guys with 40-50 year old guns?

I still get a good laugh when Bush tries to scare us with that Al Qaeda training film. The one where they show these guys walking monkey bars and climbing over obstacles....and sometimes they'll even slow it down so that it appears more scary.:D

To me that looks like a playground at a middle school!

The guys on the airplanes weren't any 'tougher' than those ****s. They don't have to be super soldiers. The videos show their intent, that's the point.

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 06:22 PM

How do we rationalize the leadership of the US deceiving its people into a war that has wrecked the economy, tarnished our image, and cost as many American lives as the event that started it?.. How often has the US held other nations accountable to the Geneva Conventions only to dismiss them for the current administration's agendas?..

The economy is hardly "wrecked," the stock market just reached another new high, unemployment is low, economic growth strong, productivity high...

You see no difference in the loss of lives of innocent civilians by terrorist attack and men and women giving their lives in the service of protecting their nation from further such attacks?

How often do Americans not fighting in the uniform of the US military expressly and deliberately target civilians in other countries?

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 06:26 PM

i guess Republicans have commitment issues. no wonder they wanna ban getting hitched.

The majority of married people in the US vote Republican. For whatever that means, just an interesting stat I came across recently.

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 06:29 PM

What exactly IS your point? I haven't actually seen you post one yet.

That hysteria is not a serious political position and produces nothing. It merely 'affirms' beliefs between people who already agree with each other and completely alienates anyone outside a very specific group. Its pointless, unproductive, and infantile.

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 06:38 PM

I think the American government is the bad guy and apathetic American citizens made it that way.

Then you have made your choice and I hope you can live with it. You'd better not forget it.

FuXnDajenariht

10-19-2006, 06:43 PM

don't wet yourselve unkokusai. there just jokes. i guess their too liberal for you. :rolleyes:

"That hysteria is not a serious political position and produces nothing. It merely 'affirms' beliefs between people who already agree with each other and completely alienates anyone outside a very specific group. Its pointless, unproductive, and infantile."

hysteria? now thats just your opinion

FuXnDajenariht

10-19-2006, 06:44 PM

The majority of married people in the US vote Republican. For whatever that means, just an interesting stat I came across recently.

yea your right. that is a pointless stat.

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 07:00 PM

yea your right. that is a pointless stat.

...............................

"you're"

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 07:01 PM

hysteria? now thats just your opinion

Would 'extreme hyperbole' make you feel better?

FuXnDajenariht

10-19-2006, 07:17 PM

...............................

"you're"

oh god i couldn't wait for the spelling corrections. its always the last resort when all else fails..... ;)

but more importantly. in response to your claim that our economy isn't in danger.

this article states a fact that everyone else seems to know except the white house.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7639

<excerpt>
"During the 2000 presidential TV debates, George W. Bush relentlessly repeated the tired Republican mantra that government, especially the federal government, is the enemy of American workers. As president, he's turned that rhetoric into reality.

Actually, Bush is as much a big-government guy as was Lyndon Johnson or FDR. But in his case, Bush has used federal power to undercut workers' bargaining power, dumping workers out of the middle class and kicking the ladder away from those trying to get in. Jobs in factories and services that pay good wages and offer decent benefits are disappearing. As a result, the overwhelming majority of Americans -- those who must work to put food on their tables and roofs over their heads -- are more financially insecure and have seen their living standards erode. In 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked the American people, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" When John Kerry poses that question later this year, the answer, by virtually every measure, will be "no......."

FuXnDajenariht

10-19-2006, 07:24 PM

"Wages. For those Americans with jobs, 2003 was the worst year for wage growth since 1996. It was especially true for those who make up the male working-class core of the "Reagan Democrats": Real weekly earnings for full-time, male workers over 25 fell for all but the top 10 percent of wage earners.

"As a result, working longer hours is the only way many can cling to a middle-class income. Yet the administration is busy revising the regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act in a way that would make roughly 8 million workers ineligible for overtime pay. The affected employees could be required to work overtime for nothing, furthering the "Wal-Martization" of the labor force. (It's no accident that low-wage Wal-Mart is now one of the two largest corporate contributors to political campaigns, with 84 percent of its donations going to Republicans.) And while the real minimum wage is now 25 percent below its 1979 value, the administration has blocked every effort to raise it.

As wages are squeezed, Bush has systematically shredded the already tattered social safety net. Housing subsidies have been cut, Pell Grants for low-income college students have been slashed, and the No Child Left Behind education initiative has been shortchanged. Bush's refusal to help recession-racked state and local governments, which by law may not run deficits the way the federal government can, has meant the closing off of health-care, job-training, and child-care services for low-income workers......"

FuXnDajenariht

10-19-2006, 07:25 PM

"Collective bargaining. One-third of American workers say they would join a union if they had a chance, and over half support collective bargaining. Yet only 13 percent are union members because existing laws make it difficult. Bush, meanwhile, is trying to make it impossible. His administration has used federal power to harass labor unions by imposing onerous reporting requirements on them, far beyond what is required of employers. These rules have prohibited government project managers from making agreements with unions to ensure uninterrupted work flows. The Bush administration was even willing to veto its own Department of Homeland Security unless Congress gave it the right to bar collective bargaining from the agency......"

omarthefish

10-19-2006, 09:24 PM

That hysteria is not a serious political position and produces nothing. It merely 'affirms' beliefs between people who already agree with each other and completely alienates anyone outside a very specific group. Its pointless, unproductive, and infantile.

This is a really good point and is the one I alluded to about 2 or 3 pages ago when I said that unkokusai had a point. I think I also said that I don't even know what he thinks about THIS issue. AFAIK, he's not been on this thread making point one way or the other about the terror bill, our conversion into a tyrrany/military dictatorship or any other political issue.

It's a really hard point to take and I am not sure I agree as the neocons have used hysteria to achieve this incredible sea change. I agree that it is not a serious political position but I don't agree that it produces nothing. Hysteria produced the abolition of the bill of rights. Hysteria produced a rubber stamp on an illegal war. Hysteria has produced all kinds of incredible results. IMO, there has been not NEARY enough hysteria. All that America stands for has been demolished in just 6 short years (more or less) and all I am seeing online is a great big national yawn.

T.S. Elliot was right. The world ends not with a bang but a whimper. :(

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 10:10 PM

This is a really good point and is the one I alluded to about 2 or 3 pages ago when I said that unkokusai had a point. I think I also said that I don't even know what he thinks about THIS issue. AFAIK, he's not been on this thread making point one way or the other about the terror bill, our conversion into a tyrrany/military dictatorship or any other political issue.

I appreciate your recognition.

splinter

10-19-2006, 10:16 PM

That hysteria is not a serious political position and produces nothing. It merely 'affirms' beliefs between people who already agree with each other and completely alienates anyone outside a very specific group. Its pointless, unproductive, and infantile.

This is partialy true. Although hysteria may not be a SERIOUS (whatever that means) political position, it can certainly be an effective one.

Especially when dealing with uneducated masses. The best way to move masses when you don't have time to explain to them what's actually going on is to invoke emotions, and hysteria is a really good one. It's used by the Bush administration, Al Queda (sp.?), FOX, CNN, and many of the people posting in this thread to push them toward action of some kind.

While I don't agree with the alarmist approach that's being taken by some of the people posting, much of what they're saying is true. The Bush administration is sacrificing the American way of life in order to acomplish what exactly? To defend the Amerian way of life? If that's the case, by definition, they've already failed.

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 10:24 PM

Hysteria produced the abolition of the bill of rights. Hysteria produced a rubber stamp on an illegal war. All that America stands for has been demolished in just 6 short years

T.S. Elliot was right. The world ends not with a bang but a whimper. :(

Ok, and here you go on to illustrate my point.

The Bill of Rights has not been abolished, as you are well aware. That comment was hyperbole at the very least.

The 'legality' of any war, and of the war in Iraq specifically is a matter largely of rhetoric and very little else. There is no binding 'legal' authority to which the US has subjected itself the way that an individual does in tacitly agreeing to the social compact of citizenship in a given nation, and you know that. Furthermore, an entirely separate conversation could be held concerning the relevant UN resolutions that the UN itself imposed upon Hussein and which his violation of were never in dispute in the UN. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

If the extremely divisive politics of the past years are considered a 'rubber stamp' then we have a vastly differing opinion on the meaning of 'rubber stamp'

If you feel that "All America stands for has been abolished" then that is your extreme and wholly subjective view and the way that it was phrased would have to at least come close to 'hysteria' by most definitions.

Comments referring to the end of the world (:rolleyes: ) speak for themselves in this regard, I should think.

unkokusai

10-19-2006, 10:28 PM

This is partialy true. Although hysteria may not be a SERIOUS (whatever that means) political position, it can certainly be an effective one.

Especially when dealing with uneducated masses. The best way to move masses when you don't have time to explain to them what's actually going on is to invoke emotions, and hysteria is a really good one. It's used by the Bush administration, Al Queda (sp.?), FOX, CNN, and many of the people posting in this thread to push them toward action of some kind.

While I don't agree with the alarmist approach that's being taken by some of the people posting, much of what they're saying is true. The Bush administration is sacrificing the American way of life in order to acomplish what exactly? To defend the Amerian way of life? If that's the case, by definition, they've already failed.

"The Bush administration is sacrificing the American way of life" itself is an empty comment based entirely on extreme political bias. You are of course welcome to any bias you like, but there is nothing in that comment to take seriously.

FuXnDajenariht

10-20-2006, 04:02 AM

well i've stated my political position already. one that you obviously dont agree with, so you claim that i and others are being hysterical because we're angry that the American law is being altered or removed for political agendas and manuevering. thats just dismissive. someone posed the question as to when should people be alarmed. for unkokusai its seems to be that as long as his chosen side is in power, never. they can do no wrong. hes on the "winning team". :rolleyes:

splinter is biased for using clear cut evidence and coming to a rational conclusion? most people that i've talked to echo whats been said on this thread. they're just regular voters with no particular party allegiances but they've all came to the same conclusion for better or worse concerning the truth about Bush. no less than the party line is acceptable it seems. anything else is hysteria, crying wolf, or claiming the sky is falling. granted the Military Commission Act may not change a **** thing. god willing. but i think its naive to say their aren't dozens of things that people should already be the far side of strongly concerned about. of course thats just my "bias". :rolleyes:

you've all heard about the shrinking middle class. lets start with that one. its the only way most Americans have access to the American dream, but yet their being shut out of it. soon your only options will be extremely poor or extremely wealthy. but good luck becoming part of that top 1%. they dont share very well. your place is almost precluded.

liberal fantasy world. i bet you can't even define liberal. liberals can't even definitively agree on it. you seem to like throwing that word around though

FuXnDajenariht

10-20-2006, 04:17 AM

exactly who claimed it was the end of the world? i dont recall anyone doing that. i recall people justifiably complaining about the state of the American government and our political system in general. i dont believe anyone here truly thinks the world is gonna end without America.

no its quite the opposite. the world is gonna be here for quite some time and our time here is just a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. our country too will probably be here for a while longer, for good or ill. lol realistically we dont even need a bill of rights or constitution to exist as a country. i just want the ideals that founded it to survive a bit longer too.

i guess i should go back to total apathy. thats the new American way.

lol i know i know "close your eyes." "theres nothing in the water." "everything is fine." "go back to sleep."

TaiChiBob

10-20-2006, 05:30 AM

Greetings..

"That hysteria is not a serious political position and produces nothing. It merely 'affirms' beliefs between people who already agree with each other and completely alienates anyone outside a very specific group. Its pointless, unproductive, and infantile."I agree that it is not a serious political position.. but, it is a shout into the darkness.. simple recounting of facts doesn't seem to get the public's attention, they are mesmerized by the politics of fear.. so, it becomes necessary to shine a brighter light on the issues that expose the hypocracy of the administration's direction..

Now, let's think outside the box for a moment.. rewind to 1996, take a big guess as to how much money has been spent since that time in military and covert attempts to control terrorism and promote the US agendas in the middle east.. trillions of $$.. this is where i get confused, even liberals understand the concept of "return on investment", how much goodwill do you think trillions of $$ could buy.. bingo, bunches!! infrastructure, medicine, agriculture, education, those trillions of $$ could set the middle east on a course that would turn their focus inward, on improving their own existence.. Now, how have we invested those trillions of dollars? enforcing sanctions that strarved and demoralized countless numbers of innocent peoples, overt military operations and occupations that further alienated the masses of peoples.. I understand the sentiment that "we've tried that", but.. we're just not that good at understanding the perspectives of other cultures, we tried it, but.. we didn't do such a good job at it.. The US needs to be much more in tune with the cultures we deal with, to understand that sometimes an apparent loss of face in the immediate moment will buy much in the way of self-esteem for the apparent opponent.. they can go to their people with pride and recommend that they accept our gifts as compensation for our mis-understandings.. politically, both sides know the game, it is the masses we must work with..

The old saying, "might makes right", also makes bitter enemies.. If we had invested intelligently over the last 10-20 years, we would a significantly better chance of building alliances rather than enemies, and.. a much better chance that 911 wouldn't have occurred and thousands of people, on both sides, would still be alive.. Engage those savvy conservative investment bankers in developing working models for the masses.. just look at the Nobel Peace Prize winner, small loans to the poor in India's worst economic regions with astonishing payback success, a banker that recognized every individual's desire to feel good about themselves.. The winners looked past the symptoms, into the causes and souls.. The US attacks "symptoms", not causes..

There is no viable US leadership from either Party on the horizon.. but, that's part of the problem, the Political Party System.. where Party affiliations and differences are more important than the well-being of the nation and the world.. Party Politics are far dirtier than any wars, and will likely be the undoing of our present form of government.. We, as a nation, need to look for better solutions not resort to antiquated models of domination and superiority.. there is a common language between all peoples, security.. to the degree we can assist people in cultivating their own security, everyone wins.. Sure, some will make the arguement about religious ideologies.. but, i have not seen any group that will not respond positively to real offers of security.. everyone has their price, and i would rather invest with $$ than lives..

Be well...

auntie

10-20-2006, 05:36 AM

And where America leads Britain quickly follows.
I already live in a country where a elderly man can be manhandled and detained under the anti-terrorist act for heckling at a party conference, where a woman can be arrested under the same antit-errorist act for peacefully reading out, beside the war memorial in London, the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq, where a man can be shot dead because he walked out of a block of flats where a suspected terrorist lived and boarded a tube train.
If I hear one more politician say that people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear I'll sling the TV through no. 10's front window.

Also where people are encouraged to report their neighbours to the council if they don't recycle enough rubbish, and where Christmas is banned by name in some cities in case it offends non-Christians (you couldn't make this up!!).
And political correctness now means that you can't advertised for either experienced people or trainees because that would be ageist.
Mad. totally bonkers.

We haven't quite got as far as you guys seem to have, but Blair's still got a few months left I'm sure he can come up with something.

(Funny thing but I've had to log back on twice while trying to post this.)

And now that I'm totally depressed I'll go back to work.

KC Elbows

10-20-2006, 06:48 AM

Hey, that's funny! Do you have some CNN jokes too?

I had a good CNN joke once, but it was preempted by another CNN joke that was a bit short on content.

I really missed that first CNN joke. For a long time, I wondered where it went. Fortunately, the other day, (on CNN), I saw that it was at the center of a vicious adoption tug-of-war between, on one side, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and John Karr, and, on the other side, Madonna, Jennifer Anniston, Vince Vaughn, and Tom Cruise's deformed baby.

Karl Rove said it was all a "tempest in a teapot": CNN analysts suggested he was saying this to manipulate public opinion, then analyzed how this would influence public opinion, and then influenced public opinion.

Shortly, they should let us know how this should affect Bush's poll numbers, in case we get polled, so that we're well informed of our position.

Fu-Pow

10-20-2006, 11:25 AM

I don't know why the democrats haven't thought of this but I think that we need to add a new term to the lexicon:

Fearist

def. A person that instills fear in others for political or economic gain.

usage: The Bush admin are a good example of fearists, they instill fear in people to achieve their political and economic agenda.

That would be in contrast to a terrorist who instills "terror" in people by heinous acts of violence to make some kind of statement.

A fearist is more subtle and may capitalize on the actions of terrorists to instill fear.

If you don't believe we need this term, check out the video on this page:

http://www.gop.com/

Note: I like the spinning back crescent kicks in background of that ad....**** the economy or social security...I'm worried about Radical Islamic Fascists trying to kick me.

Oh brother....

FP

David Jamieson

10-20-2006, 11:32 AM

actually, i think the word "terrorist" fits the definition just fine. :D

MasterKiller

10-20-2006, 11:50 AM

Or maybe the Corrupticans....

Wood Dragon

10-20-2006, 11:52 AM

Since the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy's growth rate (3.5 percent) has been better than the average for the 1980s (3.1) and 1990s (3.3). Today's unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is lower than the average for the 1990s (5.8) -- lower, in fact, than the average for the past 40 years (6.0).

Some stall.

MasterKiller

10-20-2006, 11:53 AM

Wait till the draft kicks in. Unemployment will be 0%.

FuXnDajenariht

10-20-2006, 01:27 PM

if u say so Wood dragon. ;)

FuXnDajenariht

10-20-2006, 01:28 PM

Or maybe the Corrupticans....

lol i think its called good old manipulation.

GLW

10-20-2006, 01:38 PM

Just to get this back on track...

What is IN the law :

""Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,"

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission may direct. "

The key here is the phrase "in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States"

Now, if this ONLY applied to non-US citizens, this phrase would NOT be in here. a non-US citizen has no reason to have any allegiance or duty to the United States....the MAY have some but it is not expected or required. In fact, part of the oath for citizenship is to foreswear any allegiance to foreign nations, governments and potentates....

So, whether or not the intention is to currently use this law against the US citizens, it definitely DOES open the door for that use. AS IN - Habeas Corpus CAN be denied.

Now, there was an interesting article posted recently where the Bill of Rights was examined in the context of Habeas Corpus being gone....and the bottom line was that only ONE out of 10 rights stays - that was your right to NOT have soldiers put up in your home.

So... the slide is in place....the ONLY thing that prevents this very real slippery slope is the possibility of the government acting responsibly ---- not bloody likely. Then there is the possiblity of fighting this through the courts and eventually the Supreme Court....and the makeup of the court makes that strange...but you first have to get there..... So, fighting this in the Supreme Court, what happens if you and your lawyer are deemed to be in violation of this law? What if you and your lawyer are whisked away....where does a lawsuit go when the plaintiffs and the lawyer disappear....????

It is not a question of would this ever happen. It is a question of should ANY law ever be written in such a way that such a thing could be allowed to happen.

Folks went to war a little over 200 years ago over this very question.....and here we have folks who give such things away without a blink...while questioning the bravery or patriotism of those who stand up and ask for accountability of the elected officials...as well as asking for honor in our dealings with each other and the other nations of the world.

go figure.

Fu-Pow

10-20-2006, 01:39 PM

Or maybe the Corrupticans....

How 'bout the CorruptiCONS......plays to that whole neo-con thing...plus you got the transformers thing going as well....oh yeah and the convict thing as well.

Example of usage:

Those fearists, the corrupticons, sure have messed things up for America.

unkokusai

10-20-2006, 02:12 PM

GLW

10-20-2006, 04:36 PM

quite typical...

You quote a different section of a law in response to one other section.

THAT is the stuff lawsuits are hinged upon. You take a law that has one section that says one thing, then another that says something else...then you add an a$$hole like Alberto Gonzalez to cherry pick and you get interpretations and actions based upon those interpretations.

Now, I will freely admit that I cannot guarantee that anyone would ever use the portion of the law that I cited to suspend the rights of US citizens. I will also admit that there IS a possibility of that...and that possibility is a big thing...and none too good.

The issue here is that you wish to say that it will not happen and others say it could.

Now ask yourself the "What if I am wrong question"

If I am wrong, we have exercised diligence, protected civil liberties, and most likely taken a step UP in the eyes of the international community....

If YOU are wrong, we have a police state and gulags.

Hmmmm....From where I stand, diligence and resistance against laws such as these is a win / win situation. and your approach is at best a break even if you are right and at worst very bad if you are wrong.

Why would ANYONE take such a bet....do you REALLY feel that unsafe and the need to exact revenge....(for what ....???)

Sorry...the world has been a changed and dangerous place due to terrorists...not since 9/11/2001...but since the Olympics in 1972. It just took slow Americans such as you 30 years to get it.

FuXnDajenariht

10-20-2006, 06:01 PM

preach it GLW! those are exactly the points i been trying to convey. you said it alot more eloquently than i did though.

unkokusai

10-20-2006, 07:55 PM

quite typical...

You quote a different section of a law in response to one other section..

I'm sorry to let the actual wording of the law to get in the way of your agenda. Forgive me. :(

unkokusai

10-20-2006, 07:57 PM

...then you add an a$$hole like Alberto Gonzalez to cherry pick and you get interpretations and actions based upon those interpretations.

.

That's nice. Is everyone who doesn't hold your political views an a$$hole, or just those in public service?

unkokusai

10-20-2006, 07:59 PM

If I am wrong, we have .

If you are wrong ... oh yeah you remember that thing that happened, don't you?:rolleyes:

omarthefish

10-20-2006, 08:07 PM

The law clearly states that it is applicable to "alien unlawful enemy combatants"

The language is very similar to that in the Geneva Convention as to the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" and additionally stipulates "alien"

No. That's a lie.

It ALSO includes American citizens. I cite George Washington University Constitutional Law professor, Jonathan Turley in his interview on MSNBC:

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/

omarthefish

10-20-2006, 08:23 PM

Here is a link to the text of the actual bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

"Unlawfull Enemy Combatants" are defined as:

"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant means--

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposely 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 assocaiated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Miliatary 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 Presedent of the Secretary of Defense.

It's in Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Wikepedia mainpage on the bill says that it does not apply to citizens but also notes that the page is under dispute. It additionally comments:

... Prior to the enactment, the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" was applied by the Bush administration to at least 3 American citizens. See John Walker Lindh, José Padilla, Yaser Hamdi.

Death of Habeas Corpus from Oberman:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5jGLgkn5HSo

Another source clearly showing how this applies to US citizens just like anyone else. This time from www.freepressinternational.com:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hs37gfuqaj0

An another point raised in that last clip that I didn't notice before is that any US militia member is also defined as a "lawful enemy combatant" and therefore included in the bill. So kiss your 2nd amendment goodbye.....twice.

GLW

10-20-2006, 08:32 PM

no...the insult was directed straight at Alberto Gonzalez.... his record of interpretation of the law - if you can call it that...and other 'services' to Bush put him in the class of sleaziest of the sleazy lawyers.

As in The Geneva Convention being "quaint" his words....not mine.

omarthefish

10-20-2006, 09:12 PM

The New York Times also reports:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of ''illegal enemy combatant'' in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

They'll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Lot's more for anyone with a membership:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00815FC3D540C7B8EDDA00894DE404482

FuXnDajenariht

10-20-2006, 09:25 PM

That's nice. Is everyone who doesn't hold your political views an a$$hole, or just those in public service?

no i prefer the ploy of calling someone hysterical when you disagree with their argument, but you have absolutely no reply to it

BoulderDawg

10-20-2006, 09:36 PM

Pres Bush has declared a holiday!

So I would like to wish everyone a happy "Character Counts Week"!:D

splinter

10-20-2006, 11:30 PM

"The Bush administration is sacrificing the American way of life" itself is an empty comment based entirely on extreme political bias. You are of course welcome to any bias you like, but there is nothing in that comment to take seriously.

It requires extreme political bias to say that giving up the right to a fair trial goes against the american way of life?

BTW. I did a quick check through the thread, and couldn't find a link to the bill that was in question. Can someone post it? I'd like to see the passages that mention non american citizens (or aliens, or however they're specified.)

unkokusai

10-20-2006, 11:37 PM

BTW. I did a quick check through the thread, and couldn't find a link to the bill that was in question. Can someone post it? I'd like to see the passages that mention non american citizens (or aliens, or however they're specified.)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

unkokusai

10-20-2006, 11:40 PM

No. That's a lie.

That is not a "lie" and I await your public apology.

unkokusai

10-20-2006, 11:42 PM

no...the insult was directed straight at Alberto Gonzalez.... his record of interpretation of the law - if you can call it that...and other 'services' to Bush put him in the class of sleaziest of the sleazy lawyers.

Alright. What are YOUR qualifications in interpreting law?

omarthefish

10-21-2006, 03:08 AM

BTW. I did a quick check through the thread, and couldn't find a link to the bill that was in question. Can someone post it? I'd like to see the passages that mention non american citizens (or aliens, or however they're specified.)

Didnt' look very hard I guess. I posted it just a couple posts before you asked. :)

Post #168

Here is a link to the text of the actual bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

"Unlawfull Enemy Combatants" are defined as......

omarthefish

10-21-2006, 03:11 AM

That is not a "lie" and I await your public apology.

I already posted the actual text.

The bill does not limit it's self to aliens. If it does, find the text and cite it. I cited above where it applies to US citizens. I provided a text of the bill quoted the relevant portions and supplied an interpretation from a constitutional law professor, the relevant Wikipedia citations and 2 separate news sources.

You cited.........?

In the bill, the word "alien" is mentioned 6 times.

The first 4 times are in the General Provisions where the term is defined and also in the "Purpose" of the bill where it states that this bill is supposed to be applying to alien unlawful enemy combatants. Then it is mentioned another 2 times towards the end of the bill where it specifically denies the right to invoke the Geneva conventions to any "alien detained by the United States".

Although it states that the "purpose" is specific to aliens, there is nothing in the actual body of the bill to do so and it in fact specifically spells out which American citizens can be seized and detained indefinately under the bill.

It's not like the bill is not available online...on this thread even.

splinter

10-21-2006, 07:28 AM

Didnt' look very hard I guess. I posted it just a couple posts before you asked. :)

Post #168

LOL. I guess I didn't. I figured if it was anywhere, it'd be in the frist couple of pages of the thread, not the last one.

GLW

10-21-2006, 09:02 AM

from the wikipedia :

As counsel to Governor Bush, Gonzales helped Bush be excused from jury duty when he was called in a 1996 Travis County drunk driving case. The case led to controversy during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign because Bush's answers to the potential juror questionnaire did not disclose Bush's own 1976 misdemeanor drunk driving conviction.[1] Gonzales' formal request for Bush to be excused from jury duty hinged upon the fact that, as Governor of Texas, he might be called upon to pardon the accused in the case. Upon learning of the 1976 conviction, the prosecutor in the 1996 case (a Democrat) felt he had been "directly deceived". The defense attorney in the case called Gonzales' arguments "laughable".[2]

As Governor Bush's counsel in Texas, Gonzales also reviewed all clemency requests. A 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly asserts that Gonzales gave insufficient counsel, failed to take into consideration a wide array of factors, and actively worked against clemency in a number of borderline cases. (The state of Texas executed more prisoners during Gonzales' term, and still has more prisoners on death row, than any other state.)[3] [4]

and

During his January 2005 Attorney General Senate confirmation hearings, Gonzales apparently lied to Congress. Senator Russ Feingold, in attempting to determine where Gonzales believed the president's authority ends, asked whether the president could act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant. Gonzales avoided answering the question by claiming that warrantless eavesdropping was a "hypothetical situation" and thus impossible to answer. He went on to add that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. These statements were later proven false, when on February 6, 2006, he testified before Congress to his knowledge of the U.S. domestic spying program while he was White House Counsel.

And that is merely from a 15 second search... citing other issues that make the man a sleaze lawyer wouldn't be that hard...but a waste of my time. As they say in textbooks, the proof is left to the concerned student...of course, logic and concern is lost on many.

Try a step out of your frame of reference for a minute....

unkokusai

10-21-2006, 09:54 AM

I provided a text of the bill quoted the relevant portions and supplied an interpretation from a constitutional law professor, the relevant Wikipedia citations and 2 separate news sources.

You cited..........

I quoted the exact language of section 948c. You have based your opinion on interpretations that support your predetermined conclusions.

I said: "The law clearly states that it is applicable to "alien unlawful enemy combatants"

The language is very similar to that in the Geneva Convention as to the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" and additionally stipulates "alien""

and you called me a liar. I'm still waiting to see if you will appropriately apologize. :mad:

unkokusai

10-21-2006, 10:35 AM

... citing other issues that make the man a sleaze lawyer wouldn't be that hard...but a waste of my time. ....

There is no one who has practiced law for any significant amount of time about whom one could not find something to support a given attitude about. Your view was prejudiced before you did any search. You have the right to your opinion, but you might as well be honest about it.

FuXnDajenariht

10-21-2006, 12:03 PM

exactly what are people supposed to do if they can't even trust that their votes will be honored?

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529
"Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
October 26, 2005

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage. Click here for GAO Report

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received "more than 57,000 complaints" following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank, grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.

The GAO findings are particularly ****ing when set in the context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable enough to allow a a tiny handful of operatives -- or less -- to turn the whole vote count using personal computers operating on relatively simple software.

The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

-The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.

-A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County

-Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems in Franklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.

-A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.

-In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count.

-In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.

-In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.

-In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.

-Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.

-In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.

-In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.

-In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better."

But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear that's exactly what happened.

GAO Report

Revised 10/27/05

Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, available via http://freepress.org and http://harveywasserman.com. Their WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO, with Steve Rosenfeld, will be published in Spring, 2006, by New Press. "

is there any wonder why they're pushing electronic ballots so hard?

unkokusai

10-21-2006, 12:20 PM

It was clearly the space aliens on the grassy knoll who dangled the chads. :rolleyes:

FuXnDajenariht

10-21-2006, 12:22 PM

your sounding like a broken record son.

FuXnDajenariht

10-21-2006, 12:30 PM

everyone is posting articles and practically typing essays in response to you and you reply with 1 or 2 sentences of no value? you clearly have nothing to add. why dont you let the adults talk? :p

David Jamieson

10-21-2006, 12:36 PM

electroniv voting machines are suspect from the get go.

mark an x beside your guy, get it counted by the nice senior citizen who is volunteering and let the totals be what the totals are.

the very idea of electronics being involved in the day and age of hacking, data theft and data manipulation is a very stupid idea to begin with.

im surprised nobody raised their eyebrows at it from the outset. an election is worth the extra time it takes to count. It's basic math and it doesn't require fancy gizmos.

outlaw them and see what happens.

FuXnDajenariht

10-21-2006, 01:04 PM

yea everything should definitely not be computerized. we're too technologically dependent. presidential elections (elections in general) is definitely an example of sumthin that should never be computerized.

unkokusai

10-21-2006, 01:11 PM

your sounding like a broken record son.

Funny YOU should say that..........

FuXnDajenariht

10-21-2006, 01:15 PM

blah blah blah, blah blah

keep them "witty" one liners coming son.

omarthefish

10-21-2006, 03:01 PM

I quoted the exact language of section 948c. You have based your opinion on interpretations that support your predetermined conclusions.

I said: "The law clearly states that it is applicable to "alien unlawful enemy combatants"

and you called me a liar. I'm still waiting to see if you will appropriately apologize. :mad:

liar liar pants on fire!

You quoted an irrelevant section and it was incomplete. You then lied again about my reference. I refer you to post #168 on the previous page:

Here are the definitions cut and pasted from the library of Congress website:

`Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) 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 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.

`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--

`(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.

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

`(4) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:

`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

`(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

`(5) GENEVA CONVENTIONS- The term `Geneva Conventions' means the international conventions signed at Geneva on August 12, 1949.

I typed in the section of the bill where it "unlawful enemy combatants" are defined. Anyone who wants to see which of us are being more honest has only to look it up in the copy of the bill that I actually quoted.

The language is very similar to that in the Geneva Convention as to the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" and additionally stipulates "alien""

It only refers to "aliens" in the part where it specifically denies them the right to invoke the Geneva conventions. In the part where it actually defines "unlawful enemy combatants" there is no reference whatsoever to citizenship status. I refer you once again, to the actual bill:
pdf version:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

Online version which may be easier to manage:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109F3UdGs::

It's not that long really. The bulk of it is the description of how the military tribunals are organized IF they are ever held as there is specific denial of the right to a speedy trial so you don't HAVE TO even have a tribunal. You can just be held indefinately.

FuXnDajenariht

10-21-2006, 03:19 PM

since unkokusai seems to have a bone to pick with rational thought.

unkokusai

10-21-2006, 03:45 PM

You quoted an irrelevant section and it was incomplete.

Does section 948c contain the language I quoted or not?

Since you are so fond of cutting and pasting I'll let you, should you have the stones, post the entirety of section 948c including its heading.

Go ahead...

unkokusai

10-21-2006, 03:46 PM

You then lied again about my reference.

What exactly did I say about your reference that was a "lie"? Maybe the problem is that you liberals just don't know what that word means anymore...

unkokusai

10-21-2006, 03:47 PM

since unkokusai seems to have a bone to pick with rational thought.

You have proven yourself irrelevant, just be quiet now.

rogue

10-21-2006, 04:12 PM

Ya know, 9/11 was an inside job.

BoulderDawg

10-21-2006, 04:33 PM

Ya know, 9/11 was an inside job.

Well, since he's blamed for everything else, I thought OJ Simpson did it!:p

At least for one plane...of course he parachuted out at the last minute.

In the other plane it was probably Bill Clinton!

omarthefish

10-21-2006, 04:45 PM

Does section 948c contain the language I quoted or not?

Since you are so fond of cutting and pasting I'll let you, should you have the stones, post the entirety of section 948c including its heading.

Go ahead...

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.

What exactly did I say about your reference that was a "lie"?...

The language is very similar to that in the Geneva Convention as to the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" and additionally stipulates "alien"

Ok. So you didn't lie. You only misled. Sorry. Have a lollipop.

While the bill is directed in 948c towards "alien unlawful enemy combatants", an "unlawful enemy combatant" is defined separately and does not require the person to be an alien. With the removal of a right to a speedy trial and the specific denial of the Geneva conventions along with the complete absense of any appeal process the door is wide open to falsely accuse as has already happened even without this bill. 3 cases on record of American citezens being seized and detained illegally by our own government. This bill opens the door wide open for that sort of thing.

That's the thing about eliminating due process. There's no way to prevent a Cheech Marin saying, "Hey man! I was boooooorn...in East LA!"

Off to the secret prisons with you, you dirty pinko liberal supporter! Terrorist sympathizer!

What exactly is left to separate us from any of the worst tyrranies beyond the goodwill of the President and our level of economic development? The only reason this doesn't lead to riots in the streets is because people's bellies are fed (more or less). That's the principle that the CCP bases it's control on too. Keep them fed and nobody bothers with human rights.

unkokusai

10-21-2006, 10:30 PM

the complete absense of any appeal process .

So, I guess you didn't read any part of section 950?:confused:

FuXnDajenariht

10-21-2006, 10:55 PM

do you really expect people to take your word for it, over that of lawyers, politicians, and journalists unkokusai? are u really that arrogant enough to think your the sole voice of reason? have you ever considered the possibility that you could be wrong?

unkokusai

10-21-2006, 11:23 PM

I expect people to read and decide for themselves without giving in to self-indulgent hysterics.

FuXnDajenariht

10-22-2006, 12:06 AM

frankly it starting to become insulting. basically all your saying is buy my bullsh!t or shut-up.

its not like you've been listening to a word anyone has been saying and its definitely not like you been saying anything worth reading either.

you live in fu(king bizarro-world dude.

FuXnDajenariht

10-22-2006, 12:17 AM

you know this is getting old. im tempted to see this thread closed. nothing really constructive is being said. all the articles and news reports are here for everyone to read, so i agree that they should make up their own minds. but without having their intelligence insulted.

rogue

10-22-2006, 06:56 AM

do you really expect people to take your word for it, over that of lawyers, politicians, and journalists unkokusai?

Problem with most people is that they blindly take the word of lawyers, politicians, and journalists without considering the fore mentioned's agendas. Nothing wrong with people having an agenda, but just something that has to be considered when gathering the "facts". Personally I take what all three groups say with a healthy amount of grains of salt.

David Jamieson

10-22-2006, 07:07 AM

Ok, so after reading it, I'd say that Bush is attempting to retroactively pardon himself while being allowed to apprehend anyone he deems as a possible maybe supporter of terror.

there is no clear definition that only aliens and infact the wording provides that any and all americans can be held suspect.

the problem lies with what is "deemed". It also lies in the civil liberties being stripped back even more.

I'm not clear as to why some people are unclear on this?

You're basically slowly getting screwed to death...or bombed. either way, screwed.

You guys are really ok with this anyway? To Hold "suspects" without trial?
Do you realize that completely innocent people have a chance at rotting in a prison cell for any number of reasons nevermind the possibility that some of those reasons will be trumped up.

In my opinion, the bill and the thinking behind it is un-american in spirit and in actuality and in fact is a form of terror in itself.

and some of you support arrest and detention without charges or evidence but only mere suspicion? If you support this action, then youare essentially supporting fascism, because, well, that's what it is in form and function.

How odd.

omarthefish

10-22-2006, 07:24 AM

I'm not clear as to why some people are unclear on this?
.

Only 2 reasons.

1. Most people are too either too lazy or too illiterate to read the thing.

2. Evil people like Unkokasais(somthingorother) actively spread misinformation. It's like the ciggarette lobby or the oil lobby on global warming. The issue, or in this case, the language of the law, is complicated so they quote bits and pieces out of context to construct their lies to the American people.

The thing that is most disgusting about people like Unko is that they actually have no shame in pulling out the stops to try and decontstuct an argument using superior rhetoric, not facts, and in the end the point they are arguing is....*shudder*....that we actually are "only" saying it's ok to illegally detain, torture, hold without bringing charges and generally just commit war crimes just like Saddam Hussein or Osama Ben Ladden or any other warlord so long as those crimes aren't commited against American citizens.

In other words, even if Unko were to "win" the argument, he has only successfully argued that the bill makes it legal for Bush to act as an aggressive tyrant on aliens and other non-naturalized Americans like people who have lived here legally for 20+ years, paid their taxes etc. but simply never naturalized.

Unkusaki has the gaul to try and paint people of concious as "hysterical" or give them pointless political labels even though this bill has been attacked by liberals and conservatives alike. It is only the NEO-conservatives and the particular republicans who have already commited war crimes when it was illegal who are behind this thing. It is a thinly veiled attempt to redifine the law so that certain people will not be brought to justice if and when the november elections return the house to the Dems.

It's like raping someone and then passing a law that specifically legalizes rape for anyone who raped anyone on the particular day and in the particular location that you yourself did.

Just arguing in favor of the thing on this thread stains you as a neo-con and a fascist of the worst sort but I guess some people think that playing word games or posting emoticons is more important than the God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that this country was founded on.

I'm not a **** "liberal". I'm an AMERICAN. People like Unko who just **** on the constitution are poison.

unkokusai

10-22-2006, 08:33 AM

1. Most people are too either too lazy or too illiterate to read the thing. .

That's most of the people on this thread.

2. Evil people like Unkokasais(somthingorother) actively spread misinformation. .

LOL! Now I'm evil, eh? More rational discourse, I see. :rolleyes:

the language of the law, is complicated so they quote bits and pieces out of context to construct their lies to the American people. .

Sounds like someone is frustrated at being "tricked" by the facts that keep getting in the way of a predetermined, emotionally-driven attitude. And, I might add, if anyone has outright "lied" here it is you.

The thing that is most disgusting about people like Unko is that they .

is that they have to put up with shrieking little girls like you while trying to get at the heart of important issues that deserve more sober consideration.

Unkusaki has the gaul to try and paint people of concious as "hysterical" or give them pointless political labels .

You mean like:

Just arguing in favor of the thing on this thread stains you as a neo-con and a fascist of the worst sort .

What a hypocrite! :rolleyes:

I'm not a **** "liberal"..

Bull****.

People like Unko who just **** on the constitution are poison.

and he ends with yet more hysterics.:rolleyes:

AJM

10-22-2006, 09:52 AM

Another theta disinformationist . Have some more koolaide and it's your turn in the coffin tonight.

FuXnDajenariht

10-22-2006, 11:55 AM

Problem with most people is that they blindly take the word of lawyers, politicians, and journalists without considering the fore mentioned's agendas. Nothing wrong with people having an agenda, but just something that has to be considered when gathering the "facts". Personally I take what all three groups say with a healthy amount of grains of salt.

anyone with any sense knows to take the media with a grain of salt. listening to the media is what helped galvanize the public to support an illegal war for 1. listening to the media, people have been deluded about the state of their government for years even before Bush took office. thats the importance of researching multiple sources from both sides of the fence, whether you wanna label them liberal or conservative. you can't not take both points of view into consideration. it makes your argument one sided.

but have you been watching cable network news channels lately? if CNN starts reporting with a sense of urgency about the unjustices they see happening to our government, then you know something is wrong, but when even FOX News starts posing serious, honest questions? well at that point my god**** head almost exploded. i personally see more Republicans doing interviews who are angrier than alot of Democrats.

FuXnDajenariht

10-22-2006, 11:58 AM

nah unkokusai isn't evil. evil takes planning. he can't think that far ahead. :p

i will say he's willfully ignorant like most Americans were though. but most people are waking up and they're ****ing angry rightfully so.

rogue

10-22-2006, 12:39 PM

You guys are really ok with this anyway? To Hold "suspects" without trial?

Naw, they should be interegated right there and then removed from this world. I don't see much point in keeping them at Gitmo.

Reality_Check

10-22-2006, 01:13 PM

Naw, they should be interegated right there and then removed from this world. I don't see much point in keeping them at Gitmo.

I hope you were being facetious. You should realize that an accusation is not proof of guilt. It's one of the cornerstones of our system of justice.

rogue

10-22-2006, 03:58 PM

Let's see, I catch a group of men not in uniform who are not US citizens making bombs with a map of NYC on the wall I can bet dollars to donughts that they're not a bunch of hobbiest. Squeeze them for what they know and then take them out of the gene pool.

omarthefish

10-22-2006, 04:32 PM

The US army its self admitted that roughly 90% of the detainees at Guantanamo were innocent.

The new law has no requirement whatsoever for anyone to be caught making bombs. You are not even required to have done anything at all. You only need be declared by the President to be an "unlawful enemy combatant".

That's why they are called SUSPECTS. Because we don't actually know if they did anything. We only SUSPECT them of doing something and in recent years all you need to do to be suspicious is have the wrong last name or place of birth. Take for example the Canadian we deported to Syria last year to be tortured and interrogated. In the end he was proved innocent of any and all wrong doing and found to have no ties to terrorist groups whatsoever. He was just a naturalized Canadian citizen who flew into the US on business......and was seized at the airport and whisked of to Syria.

That's the whole point of Habeas corpus. You have to actualy TRY someone before you punish them. We are not talking about punishing the occasional innocent man, like 1 in several thousand. We are talking about the vast majority of people seized.

David Jamieson

10-22-2006, 04:33 PM

and if they or even one of them is an infiltrator? what then? kill him for doing work to stop them? deep cover is quite often completely unknown to anyone but the commander of the plan and the given agent and that's why there is due process.

and I agree, it is a cornerstone fo western democracy and you know what happens to a building when you tear out the cornerstone?

rogue

10-22-2006, 04:39 PM

And the bad guys know it too and use it to their advantage.

The US army its self admitted that roughly 90% of the detainees at Guantanamo were innocent.
Omar can you supply me with where you got that information from?

Reality_Check

10-22-2006, 04:39 PM

Let's see we catch a bunch of men in a sweep in Iraq or we have them given to us by warlords in Afghanistan. There is no evidence that they did anything wrong. They were simpy in the wrong place at the wrong time. We hold them for years, without charge, and, now, without the opportunity to challenge their incarceration in court, we can hold them forever.

Is that justice?

Or how about, you get arrested as an unlawful enemy combatant. It's a mistake. How do you prove that? They say you provided material support to our enemies. They lock you up in Gitmo. They can hold you for years without charge. Without access to counsel. Without any opportunity to contest your detention. They torture you, and you confess. If they decide to put you before a military tribunal, they can use the coerced confession. Plus they can use secret information, to which you have no access. You're convicted and sentenced to death.

All on the say so of the President.

What do you do? What can you do?

Reality_Check

10-22-2006, 04:42 PM

And the bad guys know it too and use it to their advantage.

Liberty and freedom come with a cost. And that cost is increased risk. There is no such thing as perfect security.

David Jamieson

10-22-2006, 04:43 PM

my point is that you cannot judge a book by it's cover and summary proceedings are the hallmark of fascism not of democracy.

vigilantes are also outlawed for the very same reason.
I mean, America still ahs a lot of blood ion it's hands an a few open wounds that aren't healing right on it's own home ground in the area of civil rights and civil liberties.
you still have people flying congfedarate flags, but some people get ticked when a girl wears a hijab! wow!

you have white supremacy groups that spread hate freely, but are offended when an islamic person protests the war on iraq. wow again!

take just a couple of steps back and focus comes into play a little better.

due process is 100% necessary to keeping america america. If it is left by the wayside, then the foundation of the country is forfeit. It's really not that hard to grasp.

David Jamieson

10-22-2006, 04:46 PM

Liberty and freedom come with a cost. And that cost is increased risk. There is no such thing as perfect security.

I think it's been said that anyone who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither and gets neither.

that goes right back to your own founding fathers. You know, those guys who wrote the declaration of Independance and the Constitution upon which your entire tapestry is woven.

would you have one man and his cohorts unravel that tapestry on account of their lies mixed with half truths and deceptions?

apparently some of you would be willing. In which case, i would say that you are behaving in a very unamerican way.

Reality_Check

10-22-2006, 04:54 PM

Ben Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

No one deserves the kind of power that was entrusted to President Bush last week. No one. No man. No woman. No Democrat. No Republican. Period.

Reagan used to say "trust but verify". With authority of this magnitude, I don't think we can afford to trust.

Radhnoti

10-22-2006, 05:05 PM

I expect U.S. citizens to have the right of habeus corpus, I don't expect people from OTHER countries to have the same rights within the U.S.

omarthefish

10-22-2006, 05:15 PM

And the bad guys know it too and use it to their advantage.

Omar can you supply me with where you got that information from?

Looked it up again and the number is closer to an estimated 80% of the detainees NOT-guilty of any crime.

Here's the report:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj2.htm

More news stories reporting that a majority of those held were innocent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9626-2004Oct5.html

I have to admit though that I got the story earlier from online sources like Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2136422/

The BBC page won't load for me. *grrr* Google seems to report it's covering the same story. I'd really like to see what the BBC has to say on this:

http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3175501.stm

Just type in "guantanamo" and "innocent" for endless detailed accounts of specific individuals who were falsely detained.

Particularly relevant in this context are these sections from the National Journal article:

As a result of the habeas corpus petitions filed by attorneys representing Guantanamo detainees, the Defense Department has had to file court documents on 132 of the enemy combatants, or just under a quarter of the prison's population. National Journal undertook a detailed review of the unclassified files to develop profiles of the 132 men.......

.....The government's documents tie only eight of the 132 men directly to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan.

I actually think that I head this second hand and that's where I got the 90% figure from. The article does report more which indicates that there were others who had various other reasons for detention but they were very tenuous and not illegal. Not stuff like being caught making bombs but for things like working for the wrong Charity or giving money to the wrong person...like this guy...what's his name? Oh yeah, RUMSFIELD, seen here shaking hands with Saadam Hussein back in the 80's when they were still friends:

http://www.diosa.net/art-net/RumsfeldHussein.jpg

Under the new law, none of this would have come to light as the detainees would not be entitled to habeus corpus.

Reality_Check

10-22-2006, 05:16 PM

I expect U.S. citizens to have the right of habeus corpus, I don't expect people from OTHER countries to have the same rights within the U.S.

Why not?

In another country, would you expect American citizens to have the same rights as that country's citizens?

omarthefish

10-22-2006, 05:18 PM

I expect U.S. citizens to have the right of habeus corpus, I don't expect people from OTHER countries to have the same rights within the U.S.

Don't forget, it works both ways.

So you are cool with being arrested and detained randomly when you travel to other countries. Like if you take a trip to Britain and they arrest you as you step off the plane, whisk you off to Turkey where you rot in a turkish prison for crimes you didn't commit?

You are cool with that then.

FuXnDajenariht

10-22-2006, 05:37 PM

I was watching an interview with a US General, and he stated that part of the problem is that we leave alot of the responsiblity of rounding up terror suspects to militia leaders, who are basically warlords. this essential gives them an opportunity to clean house and get rid of political rivals or just about anyone else they deem a threat.

theres dozens of stories about them finding a good number of prisoners innocent available on the web. it was even mentioned on the news (once or twice :rolleyes: )

-------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_02/008230.php

"DIGGING INTO GUANTANAMO....I'm quite late getting to last week's National Journal cover story about the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, but thanks to Jon Henke at QandO I've now figured out how many separate articles there are (four) and how they relate to each other. Taken together, they tell a chilling story.

The basic message from these four pieces is that the evidence against an awful lot of the Guantanamo prisoners isn't just weak, it's known to be flatly false. For example, here's an account of Mohammed al-Tumani, a prisoner who was lucky enough to be assigned a "personal representative" who discovered that his primary accuser was a busy man indeed:

Tumani's enterprising representative looked at the classified evidence against the Syrian youth and found that just one man — the aforementioned accuser — had placed Tumani at the terrorist training camp. And he had placed Tumani there three months before the teenager had even entered Afghanistan. The curious U.S. officer pulled the classified file of the accuser, saw that he had accused 60 men, and, suddenly skeptical, pulled the files of every detainee the accuser had placed at the one training camp. None of the men had been in Afghanistan at the time the accuser said he saw them at the camp.

The tribunal declared Tumani an enemy combatant anyway.

There's more like this, and the story it tells is that the problem at Guantanamo isn't just that it's difficult separating fact from fiction when prisoners have been captured in the heat of battle and the witnesses against them are thousands of miles away and untrustworthy to boot. That's a genuine problem, and not one that's easily resolved.

Rather, in too many cases, it turns out the Pentagon is relying on blatantly fabricated evidence against many of the Guantanamo prisoners, and it's doing so even though it knows the evidence against them is blatantly fabricated.

And it gets worse. After all, if the Guantanamo prisoners had been captured on the battlefield, that would constitute prima facie evidence that they were enemy combatants even if the rest of the evidence against them was worthless or trumped up. But they weren't:

The largest single group at Guantanamo Bay today consists of men caught in indiscriminate sweeps for Arabs in Pakistan. Once arrested, these men passed through several captors before being given to the U.S. military. Some of the men say they were arrested after asking for help getting to their embassies; a few say the Pakistanis asked them for bribes to avoid being turned over to America.

...."The one thing we were never clear of was where they came from," [Michael] Scheuer said of the Guantanamo detainees. "DOD picked them up somewhere." When National Journal told Scheuer that the largest group came from Pakistani custody, he chuckled. "Then they were probably people the Pakistanis thought were dangerous to Pakistan," he said. "We absolutely got the wrong people."

That's Michael Scheuer speaking, the man who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit through 1999 and worked for the agency up through 2004.

To summarize then: According to the National Journal's research, upwards of half of all prisoners at Guantanamo weren't captured on the battlefield. Rather, they came into our custody by way of third parties "who had their own motivations for turning people in, including paybacks and payoffs." Many — perhaps most — of the men rounded up in these sweeps have no connection to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and the evidence against them is often weak, sometimes nonexistent, and all too frequently known to be fabricated. And yet they remain in prison.

Corine Hegland wrote the main package of stories for the Journal. It consists of three separate pieces:

Empty Evidence — The main story.

Guantanamo's Grip — An in-depth look at "Detainee 032."

Who Is at Guantanamo Bay — An examination of the 132 habeus corpus petitions filed by attorneys representing Guantanamo detainees.

In addition, Stuart Taylor summarizes some of the evidence in Hegland's three stories in an accompanying column. Jon Henke has Taylor's column here and Dale Franks provides more information and some background detail here. It's all worth reading."

-----------------------------------

if you take away a detainees habeas corpus rights away, its basically sumone elses word against theirs. a supposed witness can easily be paid off to accuse another person. if you even rub sumone the wrong way they might get their revenge by IDing you as a suspect. its a very flawed system they use.

FuXnDajenariht

10-22-2006, 05:43 PM

why is the forum so sluggish? i had to redo that whole post. i just got DSL and its like im still on dial up...

rogue

10-22-2006, 06:29 PM

Thanks Omar, I'll give them a look.

Looked it up again and the number is closer to an estimated 80% of the detainees NOT-guilty of any crime.

Here's the report:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj2.htm

More news stories reporting that a majority of those held were innocent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9626-2004Oct5.html

I have to admit though that I got the story earlier from online sources like Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2136422/

The BBC page won't load for me. *grrr* Google seems to report it's covering the same story. I'd really like to see what the BBC has to say on this:

http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3175501.stm

Just type in "guantanamo" and "innocent" for endless detailed accounts of specific individuals who were falsely detained.

Particularly relevant in this context are these sections from the National Journal article:

I actually think that I head this second hand and that's where I got the 90% figure from. The article does report more which indicates that there were others who had various other reasons for detention but they were very tenuous and not illegal. Not stuff like being caught making bombs but for things like working for the wrong Charity or giving money to the wrong person...like this guy...what's his name? Oh yeah, RUMSFIELD, seen here shaking hands with Saadam Hussein back in the 80's when they were still friends:

http://www.diosa.net/art-net/RumsfeldHussein.jpg

Under the new law, none of this would have come to light as the detainees would not be entitled to habeus corpus.

rogue

10-22-2006, 06:52 PM

The Defense Department accusations fall into only two categories -- those who participated in hostilities and those who did not. But the boundaries between the two categories can be fuzzy. In the nonhostile category, for example, is a suspected Qaeda financier picked up in Pakistan. In the hostile group, on the other hand, are a few men whose most direct link to hostilities appears to be getting wounded by one of the thousands of American bombs dropped on Afghanistan.

Picking up either group is fine. If I capture you before you kill any of my guys does not mean you receive a "get out of jail" card.

One hundred and fifteen of the files also note where the detainees were captured. Only 35 percent of the 115 were arrested in Afghanistan; 55 percent were captured by Pakistani forces in Pakistan.

That's fine too.

At least 39 of the arrests made in Pakistan came in the border region, where Qaeda fighters, along with civilian Afghan refugees and nonfighting Arabs, were stampeding out of the country in the fall of 2001, desperate to escape the war. Many of the enemy combatants arrested in that region say they fled the sudden chaos of Afghanistan without retrieving their passports and identification papers and that when they asked to be taken to their embassies, they were taken to prison instead. Many of the men who detailed their capture described being taken through one, two, or three Pakistani prisons before they were delivered to the Americans.

What were the "non-fighting" Arabs doing in those areas? Once again I don't have a problem with these captures or detentions.

Many, though not all, of the remaining 24 arrests made in Pakistan came in targeted raids on senior Qaeda leaders between January and September 2002. The senior suspects captured in these raids immediately disappeared into CIA custody -- they are not at Guantanamo. But their lesser companions, or others arrested in the same town on the same night, were delivered to Cuba.

Once again I don't see a problem with rounding up support staff and "lesser companions".

I'll look around for more evidence of a smoking gun.

omarthefish

10-22-2006, 07:16 PM

Radhnoti

10-22-2006, 08:08 PM

RC - "In another country, would you expect American citizens to have the same rights as that country's citizens?"

No, why would I? The American isn't a citizen in that country...
But, if that country is expecting U.S. dollars from tourism or U.S. investment, then it would be up to that country how they choose to treat U.S. citizens. I have NO rights in a foreign country beyond that which my country is able to negotiate or they choose to offer.

People leaving their country need to know the situation of their destinations. If I just jumped up and went to Canada would there be a problem with my concealed firearm? After all, I have the right to own and carry it here, I'm licensed. Can I go to China and speak of Falun Gong or go to Iran and belittle Muhammad? I certainly have that right here. My rights are secured IN my country by U.S. laws. Go elsewhere and you'd better know the rules.

rogue

10-23-2006, 03:46 AM

Rogue,

You are actually ok with the only requirement for being seized as a prisoner of war is ethnicity?

Follow that to it's logical extention already.

THE ONLY CRIME THEY COMMITED WAS BEING ARAB IN PAKISTAN.

If you support this action you are also supporting ethnic cleansing. You said that we should just torture them to get any information out of them and then remove them from the face of the earth. Their crime? Ethnicity.

How do you not see that that is ethnic cleansing?

Incidentally, I don't even think they were Arab. Afghanistan is not an Arab country. It's central asian.

Please, don't try to make leaps of logic. I didn't mention ethnicity, I was referring to non-uniformed combatants and terrorists. If I see a "non-fighting" Arab in a area that is not friendly to tourists then I can suspect that the person may be up to no good, especially in a war zone.

Read this again, and remember that I'm using your source here.

At least 39 of the arrests made in Pakistan came in the border region, where Qaeda fighters, along with civilian Afghan refugees and nonfighting Arabs, were stampeding out of the country in the fall of 2001, desperate to escape the war. Many of the enemy combatants arrested in that region say they fled the sudden chaos of Afghanistan without retrieving their passports and identification papers and that when they asked to be taken to their embassies, they were taken to prison instead.

They weren't refugees, they were combatants on the losing side who were running away.

FuXnDajenariht

10-23-2006, 11:35 AM

noooo. they were refugees trying not to be killed in a war zone. your the one making leaps of logic. they were wrongly labeled as combatants.

rogue

10-23-2006, 04:14 PM

So you're saying that the article from the respected National Journal, that we're basing this part of the discussion on, isn't accurate? Can you find an article on this that has been vetted?

FuXnDajenariht

10-23-2006, 09:49 PM

no based on your quote i dont see how you jumped to the conclusion that you did. it says their being held as enemy combatants now, but the entire point of the article is to state that they were wrongly accused. everyone at guantanamo is held and listed as an enemy combatant. it doesn't mean they're all guilty. the evidence against the majority of suspects isn't concrete or is completely fabricated.

FuXnDajenariht

10-23-2006, 10:38 PM

the whole point being...

the fact that their at Guantanamo Bay means they're charged as enemy combatants.

the fact that they're charged as enemy combatants means they have no right to legal counsel to dispute the charge.

the fact that they cant dispute the charges means their guilt is not known beyond a reasonable doubt.

but, it means they are assumed to be correctly labeled as enemy combatants until it is proven otherwise, which of course they can't do because their enemy combatants.

its all circular a$shattery.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/042606.shtml

The Worst and the Rest
Are there no innocent men at Guantanamo Bay?
Jacob Sullum April, 26 2006

"The recent confirmation that Muhammed el-Qahtani, a Saudi who reportedly had planned to participate in the September 11 terrorist attacks, is among the U.S. detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, seemed to support the Bush administration’s assurances that the men held there are "the worst of the worst." But a closer look at the government’s accusations against the prisoners, many of whom have been locked up for more than four years without charge or trial, indicates that most are smaller fry and that some are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is undisputed that, in the chaotic conditions of Afghanistan and western Pakistan during the U.S. fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, innocent men were picked up, turned over to the Americans (sometimes in exchange for bounties), and transported to Guantanamo Bay as "enemy combatants." The government concedes it happened to Uighur Muslims who had fled persecution in China, some of whom are still being held at Guantanamo, officially because they would not be safe if returned to their native country.

If the Uighurs could be mistakenly identified as enemy combatants, surely it’s possible that some of the hundreds of other detainees at the base do not belong there either. That possibility seems especially strong when you consider that most of the detainees were captured not by U.S. forces but by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance; that most were not "captured on a battlefield," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed; and that most were not accused of committing hostile acts against the U.S. or its allies.

Most are instead deemed enemy combatants based on alleged links to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or other groups that support terrorism. While the evidence of such links is in some cases substantial, in others it consists almost entirely of hearsay, sometimes obtained from prisoners subjected to harsh interrogation techniques bordering on torture.

In several cases, as Corine Hegland noted in a disturbing National Journal cover story last February, the government has cited such common behavior as wearing a Casio watch, carrying a gun, or staying in a guest house as evidence of a detainee’s membership in Al Qaeda or the Taliban. And what should we make of the fact that the government identifies the affiliation of some detainees as "Al Qaeda or Taliban" (emphasis added)? How strong can the evidence be if the government can’t even say which group a detainee supposedly belonged to?

Strong enough to satisfy the Pentagon’s Combatant Status Review Tribunals, which rely heavily on hearsay, admit coerced testimony, and presume a detainee has been correctly deemed an enemy combatant unless he can demonstrate otherwise. Since detainees are not entitled to attorneys at these proceedings and often cannot see the evidence against them because it’s classified, that’s a tall order.

The Bush administration nevertheless insists the detainees are getting all the process they’re due. That question may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled that the detainees have a right to seek judicial review of their cases.

Last year, in response to the lawsuits encouraged by that ruling, Congress passed legislation aimed at stripping the detainees of their habeas corpus rights. The amendment’s chief sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), said he wanted to stop "the never-ending litigation that is coming from Guantanamo," implying that every petition was without merit.

An attorney for one detainee responded with a Washington Post op-ed piece in which he noted that his client, one of the Chinese Muslims, remained at Guantanamo even though the government had cleared him of involvement with the Taliban or terrorism. In her National Journal piece, Hegland makes a convincing case that another detainee, a young Yemeni named Farouq Ali Ahmed, also is at Guantanamo by mistake.

I don’t know how many innocent men there are at Guantanamo, and neither does the government. I wish it cared a little more."

FuXnDajenariht

10-23-2006, 10:40 PM

heres the national journal cover story mentioned in the last article.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj1.htm

history definitely wont look kindly on this sh!t.

our President is a total douchebag. :rolleyes:

she raises a point too. when these people are finally released. they're gonna be piiii-iiiiissed. plus you dont want sumone you might of tortured running off at the mouth. but d@mn, thats 500-600 more very angry, very motivted arabs you'll hafta worry about....

omarthefish

10-24-2006, 03:49 AM

Please, don't try to make leaps of logic. I didn't mention ethnicity, I was referring to non-uniformed combatants and terrorists. If I see a "non-fighting" Arab in a area that is not friendly to tourists then I can suspect that the person may be up to no good, especially in a war zone.

Read this again, and remember that I'm using your source here.

They weren't refugees, they were combatants on the losing side who were running away.

I agree that YOU didn't mention ethnicity but that IS the almost the only basis of their arrests. Since you are already cool with doing away with habeas corpus and the Geneva conventions, all that leaves is a sweep of the area.

.. a area that is not friendly to tourists ...

You mean like.....the entire nations of Pakistan and Afghanistan? Just by living in the country they meet your requirements for arrest, torture and execution. You haven't defined "non-uniformed combatants and terrorists". Without due process, they are anyone at all who happens to be in the area from refugees to people who just live there. Without habeas corpus or Geneva convention rights, how is anyone supposed to show that they are just plain old civillians?

... I can suspect that the person .....

Can you spell M-c-C-a-r-t-h-y-i-s-m?

Wether you realize it or not, you are applying the same standards used during the big red scare to root out "communist sympathizer". Same standards that Hitler used to empower rebbellious youths to out teachers and parents. Same standards used by the CCP during the cultural revolution. Just be "suspicious". Give the wrong speech. Wear the wrong clothes. Any subjective little thing and you can be dragged out of your home and sent to an internment camp.

I can't understand why people think this is any different. I used to wonder how in the world it happened in Germany, in China, in all the various places in the world when good thinking people allowed tyrants to take away their civil rights. It is the same process in all instances. First scare up the populace based on some external threat. Then drum up a war so that you can suspend the parts of the law that get in the way of tyranny. Then once you've gotten complete controll of everything, turn the gun the other way.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

People need to take a stand for what it right.

Radhnoti

10-24-2006, 07:20 PM

omar, FuX,

The problem, as I see it, is that you are asking for trial by jury (in the U.S.) for people who were in a war zone (no uniforms) and aren't U.S. citizens.
You're looking to grant U.S. specific rights to hundreds...potentially thousands...of people. Our justice system is cumbersome to be certain U.S. citizens that COULD be innocent aren't wrongly accused TOO often. Not only is it impractical to consider a jury trial for each detainee, it's difficult to the point of impossibility. Have such rights ever been granted enemy forces in any other war? Applying the laws of the land they were captured in...what would be their fate? They'd probably be dead...they'd certainly be tortured for information.

I'm ALL about standing up for the U.S. guaranteed rights of muslims in THIS country...jews in this country...neo-nazis in this country...but you're talking about people in countries WITHOUT these guarantees. You complain about the U.S. trying to export democracy, then complain when we don't export the rights ONLY guaranteed by our society to U.S. citizens.

I'm not happy about still being in Iraq either...but I don't feel like the argument that everyone in the world is automatically owed the rights of U.S. citizens just because they've come into contact with our military holds water.

FuXnDajenariht

10-25-2006, 12:16 AM

all im saying is its wrong to hold someone indefinitely without assurance of guilt. habeas corpus is one of the oldest laws in history for a reason. they realized this hundreds of years ago in the dark ages thats its wrong to hold sumone prisoner without trial. i dont know why its such a hard concept to understand now with our own government.

if you can't try them and your not 100% sure of their guilt then release them. simple as that. people get off in our country all the time with far more concrete evidence than they have on half the people in guantanamo bay. lol you gonna make me mention OJ?

look they shouldn't be given US rights. thats what the Geneva Convention is for. but the white house dug themselves into a hole by claiming they're enemy combatants and not POW's. the label enemy combatant was essentially made to take away their rights. it leaves the door open for torture and indefinite imprisonment. people deserve basic human rights. regardless of their place of their citizenship. this is an agreement the internation community has made. so they may not deserve the rights we enjoy........well atleast not in our country. but they deserve the rights agreed upon internationally.

do you honestly think its just to hold potentially innocent men in prison for 5+ years? they can't be given a US trial. thats fine. but its ok to let them rot in jail? some kind of resolution or compromise shouldn't be found? is that really ok because their not American?

unkokusai

10-25-2006, 12:41 AM

they can't be given a US trial. thats fine. but its ok to let them rot in jail? some kind of resolution or compromise shouldn't be found?

You mean like setting up some alternative venue wherein they could be tried and adjudicated? Maybe spelling out exactly who could be tried in such an alternative venue and what protections, representation, and right of appeal they would have?

That's an idea...................hmmmmmmmmmm

unkokusai

10-25-2006, 12:44 AM

look they shouldn't be given US rights. thats what the Geneva Convention is for. but the white house dug themselves into a hole by claiming they're enemy combatants and not POW's.

That distinction was in the Geneva Convention looooong before all this.

FuXnDajenariht

10-25-2006, 12:53 AM

lol my mistake. i never actually read the thing. i just know what it basically means.

but the point still stands. now the white house has to deal with 2-300 (most likely more) innocent prisoners who've been held for 5 going on 6 years.

and you have the right idea. maybe they should be tried by an independent international court. who will do this i have no idea. but with the way the internation community has been wanting this to be dealt with, im sure there'll be plenty of volunteers for the task. maybe set up sumthin like InterPol to investigate.

unkokusai

10-25-2006, 01:36 AM

Well, that's about as much 'miss-the-point-entirely' as I can take for one day...

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

omarthefish

10-25-2006, 01:39 AM

omar, FuX,

The problem, as I see it, is that you are asking for trial by jury ...

Not even asking for that.

Take another look. Under the new law:

They don't even get a trial.

They don't even get to know what they are accused of. ( Kind of Kafkaesque don't you think? )

They don't even get to see a Judge.

They don't even know who their accuser is.

They don't get to talk to a lawyer.

They don't get a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

Habeas Corpus is colloquially thought of as "trial by jury" but that's not what it means. It means that when you arrest someone, at the very minumum you have to "show the body", you can't just "dissapear" people. It's even more fundamental than trial by jury.

Under the new law, you only get to see a Judge, a military tribunal judge anyways, if they decide they want to kill you. For torture and life in prison, not even a modern prison, it could be like a dungeon where you are shackled to the wall, no cot, no clothes, a tin pot to take a dump in....That's all ok with no trial whatsoever. Just the president's ok because the Geneva conventions are done away with as well. That means there is no minium standard for the type of imprisonment you endure.

Without Habeas Corpus intact, they even have the power to just kill you because although it is not allowed even by THIS draconian piece of legislation, with out any legal requirement to "show the body", they can just kill you and say they didn't.

Think it through.

This is why habeas corpus is so fundamental to free societies.

And btw, Fuxen, it's not "one of the oldest laws in the US" it PREDATES the US. It goes back to the Magna Carta. . . and we are getting rid of it.

FuXnDajenariht

10-25-2006, 02:22 AM

Well, that's about as much 'miss-the-point-entirely' as I can take for one day...

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

oh im sorry...were you being a sarcastic a$shat? my bad. i thought you actually had sumthin useful to add.

FuXnDajenariht

10-25-2006, 02:32 AM

And btw, Fuxen, it's not "one of the oldest laws in the US" it PREDATES the US. It goes back to the Magna Carta. . . and we are getting rid of it.

yea i know. i said in history. not just our history though. they figured that sh!t out in the dark ages. no habeas corpus=sh!tty existence. has anyone seen how they lived in the fu.cking dark ages? i mean dude.....really. they were like cavemen with swords, and now our government wants to revert back to pre dark ages law? reeeaally?

TaiChiBob

10-25-2006, 04:58 AM

Greetings..

The attitude that US citizens deserve better than the rest of the world is how we got in this mess in the first place.. The US should be an example of what is right for ALL peoples, not just US citizens..

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.From the Declaration of Independence, the US affirms the "unalienable rights" of ALL people.. yet, it seems that is not what the US practices.. it is contrary to the founding principles of the US to deny anyone their "unalienable rights" without showing just cause and affording the opportunity to redress the issues.. can you imagine the cries of "foul" if the situation were reversed? An even older principle is, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you".. The US will not win hearts and minds from a position of separation and superiority, when adversaries can see first-hand that a nation that "says" it's way is better also demonstrates it, then maybe they will see some of the inconsistencies in their own ways.. until then, they see the US say one thing and do another, no different than other rhetorics..

We have to change people's minds, not just their actions.. we might change their actions by force, but the beliefs that support their actions are intact.. the actions modified by force are only temporary changes as long as they hold their beliefs as true.. We cannot expect others to consider a different belief system if we don't support that same system by our own actions.. Civilization is littered with failed attempts to force people into change, change only occurs when old beliefs are replaced with new ones.. otherwise, people are just complying with force until the opportunity for vengence is revealed..

But, that's a long term fix, to change beliefs.. it takes decades of proving, through example, that we believe in the principles of democracy and freedom.. and remember, it only takes one "oh crap" to erase a bunch of "well dones".. so we can keep "oh crapin' " people, or.. we can show the world that Justice is Justice, no matter who you are.. Of course, the US can keep repeating history, it's a simple choice..

Be well..