Man, I sure hope the Supreme Court dismisses their argument.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Bush has proven several times over that civil liberties mean nothing to him.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Azizza:
How about linking to something a little less Bias than Salon.com, meaning pretty much anything.
You can't really dismiss this as bias...it's some pretty creepy crap any way you slice it. Gunslinger Moogle fucked around with this message on 05-03-2004 at 01:16 PM.
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
quote:
Did someone say Azizza:
How about linking to something a little less Bias than Salon.com, meaning pretty much anything.
Fox news was too busy discussing how Kerry is a gutless bastard because he was wounded three times in the war and excersized his option to get transfered out of the combat zone, and couldn't possibly be compared to Bush's spotless service record of heroically sitting in a training cockpit in texas when he wasn't being flown to washington to go on dates with Nixon's daughter or not showing up for a year... so they couldn't cover the story. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 05-03-2004 at 01:20 PM.
The fact that there are many Americans ok with this policy of unlimited detaining is even more disturbing.
quote:
Zair wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
This is why I am honestly concerned about another 4 years of Bush. Hell, in the second four years he doesn't even have to worry about public opinion.The fact that there are many Americans ok with this policy of unlimited detaining is even more disturbing.
Dem dar terreosts are taking muh freedums.
quote:
Skaw's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Dem dar terreosts are taking muh freedums.
DEY TOOK YER JAERB!
quote:
Check out the big brain on Mr. Parcelan!
DEY TOOK YER JAERB!
DEEE TUUK AAARRR JAROARABS!
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about John Romero:
Thank you, Aging Hippy Liberal Douche.
You betcha
Back to the pile!
No I don't wan't a chicken sandwich. I want a fucking double cheeseburger and fries you god damn fucking goobacks! Skaw fucked around with this message on 05-03-2004 at 01:53 PM.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan put down Tada! magazine long enough to type:
DEY TOOK YER JAERB!
DUCK A DEEERRRP
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Let's start by dispelling a few of the grossly erronious assumptions of these articles:
1) Just because an enemy combatant can be detained without a trial doesn't mean they can be held forever with no rights. Detained enemy combatants are treated as prisoners of war and protected by the Geneva convention and international law.
2) Not just anyone can be branded an enemy combatant. This isn't a blank check to snatch innocent people out of the streets. The only idiots who actually believe this obviously haven't even read the proposed act, which limits enemy combatants to those committing offenses as listed under section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 of US Code which is already in effect.
The only thing this act would do is allow TERRORISTS - not foreign or domestic innocents, not non-terrorist criminals, not political opponents - to be held as prisoners of war as enemy combatants are.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Knight Rider:
Yeah, let's ignore rationality in favor of starting an anti-bush panic. After all, ever since the economy started recovering we don't have any REAL issues to complain about.Let's start by dispelling a few of the grossly erronious assumptions of these articles:
1) Just because an enemy combatant can be detained without a trial doesn't mean they can be held forever with no rights. Detained enemy combatants are treated as prisoners of war and protected by the Geneva convention and international law.
2) Not just anyone can be branded an enemy combatant. This isn't a blank check to snatch innocent people out of the streets. The only idiots who actually believe this obviously haven't even read the proposed act, which limits enemy combatants to those committing offenses as listed under section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 of US Code which is already in effect.
The only thing this act would do is allow TERRORISTS - not foreign or domestic innocents, not non-terrorist criminals, not political opponents - to be held as prisoners of war as enemy combatants are.
There's a difference between a terrorist and a suspected terrorist. Becoming a suspected terrorist is easy, becoming a terrorists actually requires you to be involved in terrorist activity.
quote:
x--ModO-('-'Q) :
There's a difference between a terrorist and a suspected terrorist. Becoming a suspected terrorist is easy, becoming a terrorists actually requires you to be involved in terrorist activity.
That's covered in the section of US code I linked. You can't be held as an enemy combatant unless you can be proven to "create[s] a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States"
Remeber, Section 2332b(g)(5)(B) is ALREADY IN EFFECT. The proposed changes do NOT alter the definition of a suspected terrorist.
Face it, the only people you can fool into panic over this are the grossly ignorant. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-03-2004 at 02:12 PM.
Vecchio Hickory fucked around with this message on 05-03-2004 at 02:46 PM.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
ACES! Another post by Maradon!:
That's covered in the section of US code I linked. You can't be held as an enemy combatant unless you can be proven to "create[s] a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States"Remeber, Section 2332b(g)(5)(B) is ALREADY IN EFFECT. The proposed changes do NOT alter the definition of a suspected terrorist.
Face it, the only people you can fool into panic over this are the grossly ignorant.
Who decides when it is 'proven' someone creates a substantial risk?
quote:
Vecchio Hickory was naked while typing this:
Maradon, you might want to recheck your facts. Being an enemy combatant actually excludes you from the Geneva Convention. Which is why the Bush administration wanted them classified as such; they wouldn't have the protections and rights spelled out under the Geneva Convention.
Wow you can't read can you.
quote:
We were all impressed when Azizza wrote:
Wow you can't read can you.
Wow, you can't punctuate.
quote:
Skaw's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Wow, you can't punctuate.
You are obviously correct. You can nit pick grammer better and thus have the better argument.
quote:
Skaw had this to say about Duck Tales:
Wow, you can't punctuate.
He hasn't been able to for a little while now, leave it alone. Could be part of some horrible brain malfunction for all you know.
quote:
Naimah's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
You are obviously correct. You can nit pick grammer better and thus have the better argument.
I am Victor. Whats your name?
quote:
Naimah had this to say about John Romero:
You are obviously correct. You can nit pick grammer better and thus have the better argument.
Azizza had an argument?
quote:
1) Just because an enemy combatant can be detained without a trial doesn't mean they can be held forever with no rights. Detained enemy combatants are treated as prisoners of war and protected by the Geneva convention and international law.
That isn't true. Enemy combatants are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention as POW's.
quote:
Vecchio Hickory spewed forth this undeniable truth:
How can't I read Azziza? My point was about this:
That isn't true. Enemy combatants are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention as POW's.
change your fucking sigpic
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about (_|_):
OK, so why is that Padilla fellow being held, then?
He's got a stupid last name.
quote:
Waisz stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
change your fucking sigpic
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
quote:
Check out the big brain on Maradon!!
Yeah, let's ignore rationality in favor of starting an anti-bush panic. After all, ever since the economy started recovering we don't have any REAL issues to complain about.Let's start by dispelling a few of the grossly erronious assumptions of these articles:
1) Just because an enemy combatant can be detained without a trial doesn't mean they can be held forever with no rights. Detained enemy combatants are treated as prisoners of war and protected by the Geneva convention and international law.
2) Not just anyone can be branded an enemy combatant. This isn't a blank check to snatch innocent people out of the streets. The only idiots who actually believe this obviously haven't even read the proposed act, which limits enemy combatants to those committing offenses as listed under section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 of US Code which is already in effect.
The only thing this act would do is allow TERRORISTS - not foreign or domestic innocents, not non-terrorist criminals, not political opponents - to be held as prisoners of war as enemy combatants are.
You're wrong on both accounts actually. As Vecchio stated, enemy combatants are not protected under the Geneva convention, especially as the real pertinent case applies to U.S. citizens.
As for your second "point," who decides who the enemy combatants are? Surely not the courts. No, guess where all the power is concentrated? I'll save you the trouble, the Executive branch. That's right boys and girls, checks and balances have effectively been eliminated from the Government... after all... the framers had no clue what they were talking about right? I would mention Ex Parte Milligan but I'm not really sure it totally applies to here. Surely the writ of Habeas corpus was useless and wrong? Lincoln suspended it, so it must just be some dumb legal thing that keeps Monkey Man (tm) from finding his WMD (tm).
No, your innane belief that Bush/Ashcroft/Whoever the hell is President/Attorney General in the future will not abuse this is quite simply naive. A Lord Acton made a comment in a letter over a century ago with the (now) famous line "Power tends to corrupt." I remember the Solicitor General made an argument last week to a Supreme Court Justice that (I think... I have since thrown away the paper) illustrates this. The Justice asks what is to stop prisoners from being abused (read: tortured) with no oversight? He responds "Well, a U.S. President would never do that."
But isn't that the point?
I will use a slippery slide argument here, because I believe that it is a truely valid point. Once you begin suspending rights that have been enshrined in the constitution and have kept this country going for 2 centuries, you have sacrificed everything the country was built on. I'm sure in the 50's/60's it seemed like a great idea to throw all those "Blacks" in jail, because surely thay can't be equal to "Whites?" Fortunately *noone* (well, no normal people) questioned the ruling of the courts, and unlike the general disdain that the current government, much to my dismay, shows to the courts, these rulings were carried out, allowing the "slippery slope" for near-equal rights that we enjoy today.
I hope to hell that the courts rightfully throw the Gov't's argument out the door and declare this and the about to expire PATRIOT act as being mistakes. We do not need to sacrifice who we are and the basic tenements of civil rights to fight terrorism.
quote:
Noxhil had this to say about Optimus Prime:
tenements of civil rights
You had me right up until there. The word you're looking for is "Tenets" not "Tenement".
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Check out the big brain on Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael!
You had me right up until there. The word you're looking for is "Tenets" not "Tenement".
Wow thank you. I seem to keep mispeaking (well, mistyping) on this forum. First "stigmata" then "tenement" 
.
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
1) Just because an enemy combatant can be detained without a trial doesn't mean they can be held forever with no rights. Detained enemy combatants are treated as prisoners of war and protected by the Geneva convention and international law.
Like everyone in Guantanamo Bay? Oh wait, according to Bush they're not covered under the Geneva Convention because they're terrorists, not agents of a foreign government.
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
2) Not just anyone can be branded an enemy combatant. This isn't a blank check to snatch innocent people out of the streets. The only idiots who actually believe this obviously haven't even read the proposed act, which limits enemy combatants to those committing offenses as listed under section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 of US Code which is already in effect.
If the law's already in effect, why do they need another one? One that completely circumvents the Constitution, no less?
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
The only thing this act would do is allow TERRORISTS - not foreign or domestic innocents, not non-terrorist criminals, not political opponents - to be held as prisoners of war as enemy combatants are.
That's what they said about the Patriot Act. That it'd only be used against TERRORISTS -- like people who run adult establishments in Nevada, and the [redacted] that the ACLU is helping [redacted] file a [redacted] court case against. 
