If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Gitmo detainees complain about having to pay for their own abortions...or something   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 141
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

6670 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jul 2014 at 2:15 PM (12 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-07 11:31:01 AM
Yes, prisoners have rights. But the entire point of imprisonment is that rights are taken away.
 
2014-07-07 11:54:16 AM
The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.
 
2014-07-07 02:18:26 PM

ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.


The Washington Times is completely indigestible if you aren't a right-wing drooler. Al Jazeera actually practices journalism, even if one doesn't agree with their editorial slant all the time.
 
2014-07-07 02:18:50 PM
Are they citizens now?
 
2014-07-07 02:21:44 PM

ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.


Yeah, but they're Scary Mooselimbs and With the Terrorists.

/M-O-O-N.  That spells NGTRTFA.
 
2014-07-07 02:23:03 PM

anuran: ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.

The Washington Times is completely indigestible if you aren't a right-wing drooler. Al Jazeera actually practices journalism, even if one doesn't agree with their editorial slant all the time.


Your slant is showing.
 
2014-07-07 02:23:57 PM

The Muthaship: Are they citizens now?


Is hobby lobby a US citizen?
 
2014-07-07 02:24:05 PM

ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.


If the unintended consequences of a supreme court decision are that a bunch of human beings we are holding indefinitely without trial and force feeding are able to at least pray together, then fark yeah, unintended consequences are great.
 
2014-07-07 02:24:31 PM

ArkAngel: Yes, prisoners have rights. But the entire point of imprisonment is that rights are taken away.


Imprisonment is usually preceded by a trial.
 
2014-07-07 02:24:50 PM
The guards that get them pregnant should be facing up to their responsibilities.
 
2014-07-07 02:25:11 PM
Somethingsomethingenemiesofthestatesomething.

Why do we have people acting like the government has never gone against the laws of the land? Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war, FDR sent Japanese American citizens to internment camps, etc.

Detainees aren't special, they may be human but if they think they have a slippery slope working in their favor they need to wake up and smell the coffee. Exceptions can always be made for every rule.
 
2014-07-07 02:25:43 PM

Corvus: Is hobby lobby a US citizen?


Is non sequitur a citizen?

We need answers people!
 
2014-07-07 02:26:18 PM

rorgus: anuran: ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.

The Washington Times is completely indigestible if you aren't a right-wing drooler. Al Jazeera actually practices journalism, even if one doesn't agree with their editorial slant all the time.

Your slant is showing.


What the fark do slants have to do with this? I thought we could not use racially charged words on Fark.?

What did Asians even have to do with Gitmo?

Ok, I need to run, I have a  Youth in Asia comment I am working on.
 
2014-07-07 02:27:29 PM

That Guy Jeff: ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.

If the unintended consequences of a supreme court decision are that a bunch of human beings we are holding indefinitely without trial and force feeding are able to at least pray together, then fark yeah, unintended consequences are great.


Meanwhile, Obama declared he can assassinate US citizens, or detain them indefinitely, and you don't care.
 
2014-07-07 02:28:06 PM
Seeing as how nonsensical selective enforcement seemed to have been written into the decision, we'll probably just go on ahead and say the prisoners don't have any religions rights.
 
2014-07-07 02:28:26 PM
They can shut it down if it's rape rape.
 
2014-07-07 02:29:31 PM

Nemo's Brother: That Guy Jeff: ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.

If the unintended consequences of a supreme court decision are that a bunch of human beings we are holding indefinitely without trial and force feeding are able to at least pray together, then fark yeah, unintended consequences are great.

Meanwhile, Obama declared he can assassinate US citizens, or detain them indefinitely, and you don't care.


We care. We just hate hearing how Obama is the biggest tyrant in history.
 
2014-07-07 02:31:14 PM

NutWrench: ArkAngel: Yes, prisoners have rights. But the entire point of imprisonment is that rights are taken away.

Imprisonment is usually preceded by a trial.


Maybe that's how they do things in socialist countries, but this is America!
 
2014-07-07 02:32:36 PM

Delta1212: NutWrench: ArkAngel: Yes, prisoners have rights. But the entire point of imprisonment is that rights are taken away.

Imprisonment is usually preceded by a trial.

Maybe that's how they do things in socialist countries, but this is America!


Yeah! We prove how much we like freedom by taking it away from people!

Highest per capita rate of incarceration in the Western world! USA! USA!
 
2014-07-07 02:32:43 PM

Elliot8654: Nemo's Brother: That Guy Jeff: ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.

If the unintended consequences of a supreme court decision are that a bunch of human beings we are holding indefinitely without trial and force feeding are able to at least pray together, then fark yeah, unintended consequences are great.

Meanwhile, Obama declared he can assassinate US citizens, or detain them indefinitely, and you don't care.

We care. We just hate hearing how Obama is the biggest tyrant in history.


It is stressful defending a failure.  I know I got fed up with Bush around 2005 and just stopped respecting the guy.
 
2014-07-07 02:32:51 PM
In other news, the US is still holding people without trial more than a decade after they were kidnapped.
 
2014-07-07 02:33:05 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.

Yeah, but they're Scary Mooselimbs and With the Terrorists.

/M-O-O-N.  That spells NGTRTFA.


Ninja gesturing through rubble then farked anyways?
 
2014-07-07 02:33:37 PM
I really want this to stick: for one simply reason only, to see how the teaterd's heads explode.
 
2014-07-07 02:34:05 PM

LegacyDL: Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war,


Technically, that wasn't illegal, as the Constitution permits the suspension of habeas corpus during invasion or rebellion.
 
2014-07-07 02:34:24 PM

Nemo's Brother: That Guy Jeff: ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.

If the unintended consequences of a supreme court decision are that a bunch of human beings we are holding indefinitely without trial and force feeding are able to at least pray together, then fark yeah, unintended consequences are great.

Meanwhile, Obama declared he can assassinate US citizens, or detain them indefinitely, and you don't care.


How did you get that impression from "a bunch of human beings we are holding indefinitely without trial and force feeding" ? You're obviously arguing with someone else, because you don't know shiat about my opinions on the matter. farking stupid.
 
2014-07-07 02:35:48 PM
Why does Al Gore hate America?
 
2014-07-07 02:36:05 PM

ArkAngel: Yes, prisoners have rights. But the entire point of imprisonment is that rights are taken away.


They aren't going with the prisoners thing (they aren't legally prisoners anyways), they are saying that if corporations have rights, foreigners also have those rights. Even if they win those rights as "foreigners" they probably could lose them as combat detainees, so this case probably won't go anywhere. Here's hoping another foreign corporation or entity tries the same.
 
2014-07-07 02:36:10 PM
Too bad they're in Cuba.
 
2014-07-07 02:36:14 PM

ReverendJynxed: They can shut it down if it's rape rape.


But what if it's rape rape rape?
 
2014-07-07 02:36:34 PM

Nemo's Brother: Meanwhile, Obama declared he can assassinate US citizens, or detain them indefinitely, and you don't care.


When was this?
 
2014-07-07 02:36:38 PM

The Muthaship: Corvus: Is hobby lobby a US citizen?

Is non sequitur a citizen?

We need answers people!


How is that a non sequitur? If you think one needs to be US citizen for those rights then Hobby Lobby must be one to have them too.
 
2014-07-07 02:37:02 PM

Corvus: The Muthaship: Are they citizens now?

Is hobby lobby a US citizen?


It's a person so I don't see why not.
 
2014-07-07 02:37:05 PM

The Muthaship: Are they citizens now?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "


Not an amendment that specifically applies only to Citizens.

Not that the Constitution seems to carry much weight in Gitmo...
 
2014-07-07 02:37:16 PM

drumhellar: LegacyDL: Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war,

Technically, that wasn't illegal, as the Constitution permits the suspension of habeas corpus during invasion or rebellion.


George Washington felt with anti-tax protesters by forming a militia and killing them.

Wilson passed the sedition act, effectively gutting the 1st amendment.
 
2014-07-07 02:37:54 PM

Corvus: If you think one needs to be US citizen for those rights then Hobby Lobby must be one to have them too.


Really?

[you know what goes here]
 
2014-07-07 02:38:04 PM

genner: Corvus: The Muthaship: Are they citizens now?

Is hobby lobby a US citizen?

It's a person so I don't see why not.


Well that's a problem because citizens get to do things like vote.
 
2014-07-07 02:38:10 PM

The Muthaship: Are they citizens now?


US laws don't only apply to citizens. they apply to wear the US has legal control.

Also Hobby Lobby is not a citizen and it seemed to apply to it.
 
2014-07-07 02:38:10 PM
Wasn't the whole point of GITMO that it was outside US court jurisdiction?
 
2014-07-07 02:38:16 PM
sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk
 
2014-07-07 02:38:22 PM

THX 1138: Nemo's Brother: Meanwhile, Obama declared he can assassinate US citizens, or detain them indefinitely, and you don't care.

When was this?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/us-targeted-killings-eric-h ol der_n_1320515.html
 
2014-07-07 02:39:47 PM

ArkAngel: Yes, prisoners have rights. But the entire point of imprisonment is that rights are taken away.


No way are they letting them vote.
 
2014-07-07 02:39:54 PM

The Muthaship: Corvus: If you think one needs to be US citizen for those rights then Hobby Lobby must be one to have them too.

Really?

[you know what goes here]


Can you explain your actual, point? just responding with "nuhhh-uhh" gets old.
 
2014-07-07 02:39:59 PM

The Muthaship: Are they citizens now?


I am absolutely farking baffled, in this day and age of reliable information being readily available, that there are people out there who sincerely believe that Constitutional rights only apply to citizens.
 
2014-07-07 02:40:53 PM

stuffy: Wasn't the whole point of GITMO that it was outside US court jurisdiction?


It's not.

Legally US law goes wherever US has control. They actually follow US environmental laws on gitmo.
 
2014-07-07 02:42:58 PM

ginandbacon: The Al Jazeera article is a lot more palatable. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Unintended consequences and all.


Thank you for that...me no clicky the Moony Times.

FTFA: "Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons - human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien - enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the RFRA," the lawyers argued in court papers.

LOL...that is some jūdan-level trolling right there. Well played...well played indeed.
 
2014-07-07 02:43:04 PM

stuffy: Wasn't the whole point of GITMO that it was outside US court jurisdiction?


It was, but then Obama sort of decided they needed trials under civilian law, then maybe they really didn't because that turned out to be pretty hard and muddied things up something terrible.  Now it's all really f*cked up, and the idiots we should have killed in the desert think they should get the benefit of the laws we use to govern the people who live in the US (citizens or otherwise).  Lots of Farkers think they are right,
 
2014-07-07 02:45:05 PM

THX 1138: The Muthaship: Are they citizens now?

I am absolutely farking baffled, in this day and age of reliable information being readily available, that there are people out there who sincerely believe that Constitutional rights only apply to citizens.


Yeah, I'm aware parts of it cover all inhabitants, and I knew no attempt at brevity would be spared the wrath of pedants.
 
2014-07-07 02:46:42 PM
claiming their rights are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and citing the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling in their defense

Um. You're not American. Pretty sure supreme court rulings and the US Constitution doesn't apply to everyone everywhere.
 
2014-07-07 02:46:44 PM

DubtodaIll: THX 1138: Nemo's Brother: Meanwhile, Obama declared he can assassinate US citizens, or detain them indefinitely, and you don't care.

When was this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/us-targeted-killings-eric-h ol der_n_1320515.html


The post I was addressing said "Meanwhile, Obama [does something atrocious]" so your link about something that happened two and a half years ago, long before the Hobby Lobby decision, long before the Gitmo challenge based on it, doesn't exactly rise to the challenge.
 
2014-07-07 02:46:53 PM

The Muthaship: stuffy: Wasn't the whole point of GITMO that it was outside US court jurisdiction?

It was, but then Obama sort of decided they needed trials under civilian law, then maybe they really didn't because that turned out to be pretty hard and muddied things up something terrible.  Now it's all really f*cked up, and the idiots we should have killed in the desert think they should get the benefit of the laws we use to govern the people who live in the US (citizens or otherwise).  Lots of Farkers think they are right,


You really have no idea what your talking about. No it was NOT decided it was not under US jurisdiction and that was decided BEFORE Obama took office.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report