Weaver95

Nope, just rerunning month end/quarter end batch on the mainframe to cover for an upper management decision that wasn't very well thought out.

With the sound reasoning you've exhibited here today, I'm sure you're a solid asset to the team.

Yeah. Parts of the Patriot Act II have passed here and there, but the Act itself has lost some of it's muster. I don't remember any specific mass public outcry against it, but groups like the ACLU (who you should join right now if you haven't) have been doing valuable work fighting it.

Never, ever underestimate the ability of a government to pass regressive, oppressive, plain old BAD LAW, especially this current administration. Sometimes I think you could institute a beatings-are-mandatory thugocracy in this country without too much trouble as long as you didn't mess with Monday Night Football...

Jose Padilla still hasn't spoken to a lawyer, has he?

BBC Documentary Power of Nightmares (DIVX) p1.1

http://62.212.84.26/torrents/The_Power_Of_Nightmares_pt1-avi.torrent

spelunking_defenestrator: groups like the ACLU (who you should join right now if you haven't)

Ayup. You should also join the NRA, while you're at it.

"US law should not be extended world-wide, but it should be extended to those people on whom we are meting out justice."

Why? Should we drop cards with Miranda warnings on them when we bomb some place? Or would chalking the Miranda warning on the nose of the bomb be enough?

We're not so much out to administer justice when we wage war, we're there to kill people who pose a potential danger to us. Some may call that justice, but I think of it as simply being practical.

Before you go giving out rights that don't currently exist, I suggest you ask yourself what the person your largesse will benefit has done to EARN such largesse.

"Jose Padilla still hasn't spoken to a lawyer, has he?"

Uh, yeah, he has. And even BEFORE he spoke to a lawyer, lawyers were filing on his behalf...

i'm one of the best diagonisticans in the company.

It's true. They call him the Erotic Diagnostician.

Seeing the Bush haters whine about ad hominems is amusing.

Everyone who has been limited in his actions or speech by anything the government has done since 1/20/01, raise your hand.

Just as I thought.

DasWiggy:

Why? Should we drop cards with Miranda warnings on them when we bomb some place? Or would chalking the Miranda warning on the nose of the bomb be enough?

We're not so much out to administer justice when we wage war, we're there to kill people who pose a potential danger to us. Some may call that justice, but I think of it as
simply being practical.

They aren't a danger to us, nor are we bombing them - they are in custody. We are now responsible for them. I know this is a hard concept for you, but please try to keep up - we are talking exclusively about people who are in our custody, accused of conspiring against us. If they were shooting at us, then the trial should be real short, but they should still get a trial. This isn't the heat of battle, they are in our custody.

Before you go giving out rights that don't currently exist, I suggest you ask yourself what the person your largesse will benefit has done to EARN such largesse.

They are human, and in our custody.

Padilla has a lawyer but they haven't spoken to each other yet.

Raises hand.

Maybe they can name the camp Auschwitz II...

Too bad the majority of american citizens [election results place this number around 51%] are too stupid too develop a political/class-conciousness and fight back against their own governmnet...

Bill

In what way?

2 Free Speech Zones and a knocked down by a horse. More important sentiment though is the "until they come for me" mentioned earlier repeatedly.

Weaver95

But you go on thinking anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid. I'm sure you'll go far with that. Lemme know how it works out.

Buddy, read you own posts. It's not that we disagree, it's that you fail to acknowledge facts and when they're pointed out, you just keep on going. You make baseless assumptions and flat make shiat up. If you're arguments don't stand up then find out why - don't just keep your asinine assumptions going. I'm not saying you're the biggest retard to ever walk the earth, but you really haven't show us much today.

Weaver95

If I thought the ACLU was fighting the good fight because a principaled stand on the issues, I'd support 'em in a heartbeat. But the impression I get from them is that they're simply filing lawsuits against the current adminstration because they really don't like any conservative in any sort of position of any real authority.

Yeah, because they just sprang up when Bush was elected.

Steve French wrote:
re: 'Remember America? Hell of a place it was.'

Yah, we the people had a lot of hope for America. Turned out to be just another fascist dictatorship like every other system of government we ever invented.

This is what, pretty much, the whole world is thinking.

Still, I'll continue with my 'Love America Outreach Program' - bringing the word of 'cuda010,' 'Ghost Rider,' and other militant Fark conservatives to the poor and downtrodden of the Middle East.

What could possibly go wrong?

This is pathetic. And indeed the founding father would be brassed off.

The answer, of course, is as the founding fathers would themselves have suggested, summary execution for any and all terrorists captured.

This should appease the terrorist coddlers right? Those poor widdle terrorists won't have to suffer the indignity of confinement on a tropical island. And it will appease normal people who want them well, shot. And the terrorists will even be happy seeing as they will get to meet Allah and get their 72 raisins.

Weaver95 [TotalFark]

except that what you call 'facts' are really nothing more than opinion....

Like what?

"They aren't a danger to us, nor are we bombing them - they are in custody. We are now responsible for them. (ad hom removed) we are talking exclusively about people who are in our custody, accused of conspiring against us. If they were shooting at us, then the trial should be real short, but they should still get a trial. This isn't the heat of battle, they are in our custody."

So, we're faced with a bit of a dillemma. They are in custody. The realities of the adversarial process means that if we try them, the government can probably not put on enough evidence to convict them (for various reasons, like national security, the fact that the witnesses may be dead, or 12,000 miles away, or such a trial would allow them to pass information to the other side). Yet if we release them, they go right back to being a threat to us, like they were when they were captured.

We have a few options. We can try them and release them. This is good for them, but bad for us, in that as soon as they get out they have an excellent chance to kill more Americans (which is what many of the left seem to want). We can kill them. Not the best result for them or us, because they are dead and while they no longer pose a risk to us (that's a positive thing), it gives us bad press (which is a bad thing). We can turn them back over to the Afghanis. While that allows us to wash our hands of them, it still is sending them to virtually certain death. Or, we can hold onto them until they no longer would pose a threat to us if released, while treating them humanely. Which option should we choose? I guess it depends on if you LIKE the thought of more dead Americans...

StretchCannon [TotalFark]

I think it's time for "the question".


Q) For all hardcore Bush supporters, what would Bush have to do to lose your support?

Woo Hoo. Someone is using my "The Question" question.

I hope this spread... I could have my own cliche, sort of :)

But seriously, all kidding aside, I think the question really needs to be answered by everyone who supports Bush.

What exactly would Bush have to do to lose your support? What COULD he do to lose your support? Is there anything?

And a nice follow-up question for all the people who support what is going on at Quantanamo.....

When ar ethe people at Quantanamo going to either be charged with a crime or released?

Two years? Five years? Ten years?

Exactly how long is it reasonable to hold someone without charges and without trial?

Until the "cessation of hostilities"?

If we're gonna hold them until the end of the "war on terror", then you do realize that means that they'll STILL be in prison when they sun goes nova in 2 billion years.. right?

Ummm....Bill....remember where the "free speech zones" came from? How can you place the work of Planned Parenthood on conservatives? As for being knocked down by a horse, where were you during the Democratic National Convention in '68?

DasWiggy

We have a few options. We can try them and release them. This is good for them, but bad for us, in that as soon as they get out they have an excellent chance to kill more Americans (which is what many of the left seem to want). We can kill them. Not the best result for them or us, because they are dead and while they no longer pose a risk to us (that's a positive thing), it gives us bad press (which is a bad thing). We can turn them back over to the Afghanis. While that allows us to wash our hands of them, it still is sending them to virtually certain death. Or, we can hold onto them until they no longer would pose a threat to us if released, while treating them humanely. Which option should we choose? I guess it depends on if you LIKE the thought of more dead Americans...

On the other hand, if you like the thought of all friends and relatives and neighbors etc., coming after you and killing all the Americans... OMFG Wiggy likes the thought of double more dead Americans.

Lame argument Wiggy.

If this were the first time that something like this was attached to this administration, then maybe it wouldn't be believeable. However, we have an administration that is already guilty of holding people (american citizens no less)without trials, hearings, or access to council.

If they would do this to citizens, why is it so hard to believe that they would do it to non-citizens?

And why is it so unreasonable to ask that the government prove why someone is being held? The problem here is that thus far, even the military tribunals have been saying that these detentions are frivolous. That says something.

This article may be just a "report of a report." However there are a disturbing number of details here, which indicates that this is something more than a mere afternoon daydream. The mere fact that it is being considered should scare EVERYONE.

Happydaddy: You are too knowledgeable to hide behind technicalities as you are doing. Trying to play word games with someone's status is nothing more than a fancy dodge. You said alot, while saying absolutely nothing.

I just love it when I point out to the far-left kool-aid drinkers that Bob Barr now works for the ACLU.....it's practically guaranteed to get tehm frothing at the mouth....

Don't be a fool!

We need this kind of power to crush our enemies.

All of you! Start lining up. Along that back wall.

Oral, that's an AWFULLY big assumption that the family and friends of these wanton killers were pro-American, and somehow will become anti-American because we keep them in jail.

By that same assessment, I assume that the families of everybody in the US who is in prison now suddenly hates the US too, right?

Oh, my. The flames are all around me. Who could have predicted that the Bush administration would even think about such a thing?

"...possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts..."

Hm. "Not enough evidence to charge." Uh, last time I checked, if there is insufficient evidence to charge someone, that person is usually let free. So, our rights as United States citizens could possibly be tested for the same "crimes" if this thought becomes government policy.

/Central Scrutinizer: Right now, laws are being made for crimes that do not exist yet.

BTW, Oral, what's your solution? When we release them, should we give them antiaircraft missiles as compensation, so that MAYBE they'll like us???

The only good tango is a DEAD tango.

That and they're hypocritical bastages.

Show me someone who isn't? You gotta see the forest for the trees. They filed numerous lawsuits against the Clinton admin, too. It's all bullshiat propaganda, you didn't hear Dems whining about the ACLU filing against the Clintons, because they see the ACLU as one of them. When the ACLU turns around and do the same thing to Republicans, it raises everybody's hackles.

Take the NRA. Reagan supported the Brady Bill and numerous assault weapons bans. The NRA are vehemently opposed to both of these; but, the right see the NRA as "one of them", so you don't see them castigated as anti-Reaganites.

One of us, one of us...

Free speech and assembly for nazi's in Skokie but not the Boy Scouts?

Absolutely. Not allowing openly gay scoutmasters, primarily because they are gay, is a violation of civil liberties, same as if he were openly black. That doesn't mean that YOU MUST have your kid in that particular troop (I probably wouldn't want him watching over my own kid), only that he should be allowed to be a troop leader if he is otherwise qualified.

Bush and Rather both used fake documents. One has the better lawyers and was rewarded. The other one was fired.

Gee, sometimes the world can be so unfair!

Madskillz, given the alternative of Kerry, yeah, we're happy. BTW, you DO realize that the Canadian government has already told Americans wanting to leave the US because Bush is President "not so fast..."

Weaver95 [TotalFark]

"Like what?"

Why do I feel like I'm living an abbott and costello skit...?

You just did exactly what I said you do. It's like you're mocking yourself.

Weaver95 said:

[paraphrased] ........liberals bad .... Bush good.....

Um yeah.

Just answer "the Question".

What exactly would Bush have to do to lose your support?

wiggy:

how bout giving them a fair and speedy trial in front of an unbiased jury?

corn-bread

I said precisely what I meant to say. Some people are legally entitled to a trial, some aren't. Some are covered by the Geneva Conventions, some aren't. Prisoners of War are not entitled to trials, but they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants, which accounts for a goodly number of those detained, probably aren't legally entitled to any particular due process.

As I have said three times now, I believe that everyone who is detained by our government is morally entitled to some finding by a tribunal that he should be detained. The quantum of proof (and of what) would depend on his legal status.

Absolutely. Not allowing openly gay scoutmasters, primarily because they are gay, is a violation of civil liberties, same as if he were openly black. That doesn't mean that YOU MUST have your kid in that particular troop (I probably wouldn't want him watching over my own kid), only that he should be allowed to be a troop leader if he is otherwise qualified.""

And people wonder why Bush is still in office....

Please cite the part of the code which gives civil right status to homosexuality. thanks.

"how bout giving them a fair and speedy trial in front of an unbiased jury?"

How can we get that many Al Queda members to act as jurors???

re: 'And people wonder why Bush is still in office....'

I don't wonder, I know most of you are stupid.
Not ad hominem, just fact.

DasWiggy

Oral, that's an AWFULLY big assumption that the family and friends of these wanton killers were pro-American, and somehow will become anti-American because we keep them in jail.

By that same assessment, I assume that the families of everybody in the US who is in prison now suddenly hates the US too, right?

Hating the US is quite different then being willing to die for the cause but I'll bet witnessing the propaganda that you've heard all of your life come to fruition might just be the motivation one needs.

Oh jeezus hopscotch christ, would you liberals just shut up already about the fascist crap?? They did far worse in WW2 to scores of ethnicities (not just Japanese) in this country and we aren't any more a fascist state then than we are now. Hysterics do not an argument make.

The bulk of them are undeclared, undercover militants representing fascist Islamism, the same Islamism that is trying to take over the middle east. Sure, there are innocents in there, but they'll be released in due time when the govt figures out for sure their innocence (aka, makes sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that they aren't out to KILL anyone, you do WANT that safety net right?). Considering the WAR we're fighting, and that their fate falls under military law vice civil law, I don't see what you're all up in arms about (besides losing in November). It's not like this is anything new, it'd be allowable under Kerry, Bush, You, or Me.

As the vast majority of them are not US citizens and recieve no protection from the Geneva Convention because of their clandestine operations, they are guaranteed NO rights. It'd be no different if the NKoreans caught a US spy in their country...you're just screwed.