NationStates Jolt Archive

An interesting article... in that "freedom used to mean something in this country" way (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html)

A federal appeals court ruled today that the president can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in the absence of criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush. The government contends that Padilla trained at al Qaeda camps and was planning to blow up apartment buildings in the United States.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen, has been held without trial in a U.S. naval brig for more than three years, and his case triggered a legal battle with vast implications for civil liberties and the fight against terrorism.

Attorneys for Padilla and a host of civil liberties organizations blasted the detention as illegal and said it could lead to the military being allowed to hold anyone, from protesters to people who check out what the government considers the wrong books from the library.

Federal prosecutors asserted that Bush not only had the authority to order Padilla's detention but that such power is essential to preventing attacks. In its ruling today, the 4th Circuit overturned a lower court and came down squarely on the government's side.

A congressional resolution after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks by those who attacked the United States on Sept. 11,'' the decision said. "Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens.''

The decision by a three-judge panel was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who is one of a number of people under consideration by President Bush for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I suppose someone will come along and reassure me that this is nothing to worry about. Far be it for me to worry, but does this worry anyone else? The country is starting to look like a Star Wars movie or something...

And what's wrong with Star Wars?

And what's wrong with Star Wars?

Bad acting, lame dialogue....

Oh boo-hoo, the government has always been able to detain everyone else in Guantanamo Bay for as long as they like.
What's the big deal about it being a US citizen for once. Who says they cant be as guilty (or otherwise) that anyone else?

Apart from that, yes, they have implemented this is the UK too now. I think it is appalling that ANYONE could be detained for an indefinite amount of time, especially without condemning and overwhelming evidence of their guilt.

The only reason I do not agree with you is that I think that US citizens shouldn't be exempt from anything the government can do to anyone else in their country, with the single exception of deportation. So if the emphasis of your complaint isn't based on the fact that it is a US citizen, then I agree with you.

Star Wars edit: well, your country did come up with the idea of a Star Wars Defence System..

Oh boo-hoo, the government has always been able to detain everyone else in Guantanamo Bay for as long as they like.
What's the big deal about it being a US citizen for once. Who says they cant be as guilty (or otherwise) that anyone else?

Apart from that, yes, they have implemented this is the UK too now. I think it is appalling that ANYONE could be detained for an indefinite amount of time, especially without condemning and overwhelming evidence of their guilt.

The only reason I do not agree with you is that I think that US citizens shouldn't be exempt from anything the government can do to anyone else in their country, with the single exception of deportation. So if the emphasis of your complaint isn't based on the fact that it is a US citizen, then I agree with you.
A US citizen on US soil is protected, or at least supposed to be protected by the US Constitution. He's entitled to due process by the law of the land. The law may be murky when it comes to foreign fighters captured on a foreign battlefield, but not when it comes to US citizens at home.

This U.S. Citizen plotted to murder Americans, so he gets no sympathy from me, or real Americans.

This U.S. Citizen plotted to murder Americans, so he gets no sympathy from me, or real Americans.
Did he? He hasn't gone to court yet.

If they have solid enough evidence to detain him in a manner that absolutely violates his civil rights then there is no reason for him to be a citizen of the US.

Strip him of his citizenship and put him in jail.

Or, better yet, don't let him become a citizen in the first place.

I see some of you believe in the judicial concept of "guilty until proven guilty."

An interesting article... in that "freedom used to mean something in this country" way (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html)



I suppose someone will come along and reassure me that this is nothing to worry about. Far be it for me to worry, but does this worry anyone else? The country is starting to look like a Star Wars movie or something...

this is good in that it helps keep suspected terrorists off the streets

AS LONG AS they have solid evidence of terrorist activity and a willingness to do severe harm to others (at a mall, in a restaurant, on a street, wherever terrorists like to blow people up)...


what we gain: increased safety for the vast, vast, vast majority of people and no infringment on the freedom of them.

what we lose: you and I lose nothing. People who act like terrorists lose the ability to do so (or at least we can hope that they nab terrorists).

This has the possibility of turning really bad, however, if people are brought in on the basis of appearance. That is why the authorities need to have very strong reason to bring someone in under this.

Oh boo-hoo, the government has always been able to detain everyone else in Guantanamo Bay for as long as they like.
What's the big deal about it being a US citizen for once. Who says they cant be as guilty (or otherwise) that anyone else?

Apart from that, yes, they have implemented this is the UK too now. I think it is appalling that ANYONE could be detained for an indefinite amount of time, especially without condemning and overwhelming evidence of their guilt.

The only reason I do not agree with you is that I think that US citizens shouldn't be exempt from anything the government can do to anyone else in their country, with the single exception of deportation. So if the emphasis of your complaint isn't based on the fact that it is a US citizen, then I agree with you.

Star Wars edit: well, your country did come up with the idea of a Star Wars Defence System..

How can you comepare someone who was arrested for no reason to a non-uniformed combatant who was captured on a battle field?

edit: maybe not for no reason, but at least on very shaky evidence.

I believe that this poses dangers, in that there are no constrictions on how long someone can be detained for. There might be a provision for this, but as far as I've read from what you've wrote, it could be for life. If this is the case, this can be very dangerous, especially if there are not strict requirements on what someone can be considered an "enemy combatant" for. This absolves the need for due process all-together.

I see why this is in place, though. In many cases, someone who is probably guilty has to be let go because there is not enough evidence at the time that can be submitted to court to make a case against that person. If they hold the suspect for a period of time outside of the predetermined limits, the government is subject to unlawful imprisonment charges and the whole case against the suspect can be thrown out of court. This could be VERY VERY BAD when dealing with a terrorist, if that person is indeed a terrorist. Now that the suspect knows the authorities are "on to him", he will either go full force with his mission, or alert his terrorist friends and they will have to regroup and find another way to plan an attack at a later date, giving them an opportunity to recordinate an otherwise thwarted effort.

On the other hand, I would not want to see this government-leeway given to cases that involve people that are not terrorists (of course). Who would, right? But how do you determine if someone is in fact a terrorist if they have not been proven so in court? Yet there might be very strong reason to believe that the suspect is a terrorist that can not yet be proven under a judicial basis, but in which the liberty of time to gather the evidence is something that could very well cost many innocent lives.

Do you see what I mean? It's kind of a catch 22. While we want to follow the due process procedures to ensure that the wrong guy (or perhaps one day one of us) is not being punished or incapacitated, following this process under the strict guidelines of civil liberties could be to our detriment if that suspect is released due to inadequate, immediate evidence and that suspect successfully completes an attack.

Yes, but many people in Guantanamo Bay weren't seized in combat. Thats the main injustice of it.

I know US citizens are supposed to be protected more than other citizens in the country, I just don't agree with it. Why should it be special for people just because they make an oath to be loyal to the country (which honestly means nothing) or happens to be born there?

However, that aside, I think it's a travesty of justice. In theory, it's a good thing, but that theory depends on him being guilty. Measures like this just have such a potential to be abused.

I know US citizens are supposed to be protected more than other citizens in the country, I just don't agree with it. Why should it be special for people just because they make an oath to be loyal to the country (which honestly means nothing) or happens to be born there?

As far as I know, someone born in the United States is considered a citizen as well as someone who goes through the swearing-in process. I believe that the swearing-in is the last step of US Citizenship.

I believe you're talking about resident aliens, or aliens in a country, am I right?
Not trying to be a smartass, but I just wanted to clarify your argument, which has merits.

An interesting article... in that "freedom used to mean something in this country" way (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html)



I suppose someone will come along and reassure me that this is nothing to worry about. Far be it for me to worry, but does this worry anyone else? The country is starting to look like a Star Wars movie or something...
This is normal. Don't worry.

This is a power that the President has in times of war. If a US citizen, associates with and supports (whether materially or in words) the enemy, he or she is giving up all rights he has as a US citizen. In fact, such person is renouncing their US citizenship.
If the President did not have this power, Hitler would have won World War II and the Jews would be extinct. It's something Presidents have always been able to do. In fact, other Presidents, including Lincoln, have exercised this power.
This presidential power is important for defending this country and for defending freedom.

A US citizen on US soil is protected, or at least supposed to be protected by the US Constitution. He's entitled to due process by the law of the land. The law may be murky when it comes to foreign fighters captured on a foreign battlefield, but not when it comes to US citizens at home.
Actually not when they help or offer to help the enemy. Then they are de facto renouncing their citizenship.

Actually not when they help or offer to help the enemy. Then they are de facto renouncing their citizenship.
Doesn't a guy accused of Treason get a trial? The Rosenbergs got a trial, didn't they?

This is normal. Don't worry.

This is a power that the President has in times of war.

We're not at war. Calling it a "war on terror" doesn't mean the US is in a state of war any more than a "war on drugs" or a "war on crime" does.

Yes, but many people in Guantanamo Bay weren't seized in combat. Thats the main injustice of it.

I know US citizens are supposed to be protected more than other citizens in the country, I just don't agree with it. Why should it be special for people just because they make an oath to be loyal to the country (which honestly means nothing) or happens to be born there?

However, that aside, I think it's a travesty of justice. In theory, it's a good thing, but that theory depends on him being guilty. Measures like this just have such a potential to be abused.
That's just plain wrong. The fact is that the majority were captured in Afghanistan during the Afghan war. So there is no truth to the statement that most weren't captured in combat. And the ones that were, were enemy combatants turned in by peace seeking villagers who wanted to free their villages from the oppression of the people they were turning in.

We're not at war. Calling it a "war on terror" doesn't mean the US is in a state of war any more than a "war on drugs" or a "war on crime" does.
Good God in heaven. You must be joking or trolling.
It's not a police action that we are involved in. Whether you accept it or not, we are at war. We've been at war since Sept 11 2001. That's 4 years. Get used to it.
That is why Bush can do what he's doing. It's called war times powers.

Good God in heaven. You must be joking or trolling.
Technically congress must declare war, and I don't know that they did.

Good God in heaven. You must be joking or trolling.

Neither, thanks.

Technically congress must declare war, and I don't know that they did.
No. No. No.

If the other side declares war on you and attacks you, then no Congressional declaration is needed because you are already at war.

There's more to being at war than it being made official by Congress.

No. No. No.

If the other side declares war on you and attacks you, then no Congressional declaration is needed because you are already at war.

There's more to being at war than it being made official by Congress.
Really? Is that in the constitution?

That's just plain wrong. The fact is that the majority were captured in Afghanistan during the Afghan war. So there is no truth to the statement that most weren't captured in combat. And the ones that were, were enemy combatants turned in by peace seeking villagers who wanted to free their villages from the oppression of the people they were turning in.

I didnt say "most", I said "many". Now, maybe many was the wrong word to use. But there have been people of many nationalities held there, such as English, French, Australian and Swedes.
However, either way, the supposed guilt of many of those imprisoned has never been proved. Why should they be denied a trial? How can you detain a person indefinitely without even proving their guilt?
And what about the 3 British men released without charge after being held in Guantanamo in 2004?

We're not at war. Calling it a "war on terror" doesn't mean the US is in a state of war any more than a "war on drugs" or a "war on crime" does.

"war (wôr) KEY

NOUN:

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict. " - American Heritage Dictionary

Terrorists are a party. They arm themselves with unconventional devices, and use these devices to inflict death upon the populace of certain coutries and their governments. I'd say that this is a war, and if you are in a country that has suffered from one of these attacks, I can't see how you don't see this as a war.

This is not WWI or II. This isn't the War in Vietnam. This is a war in every sense other than it does not have a frontline, and does not involve conquering by the party in questions (being the terrorists).

Many allied countries in Europe have seen these attacks in one form or another, as well as the United States. The population of Iraq sees it everyday when the insurgents bomb their own people. Is this a war? If it isn't, I'd like you to tell me how it falls outside of the definition.

This is normal. Don't worry.

This is a power that the President has in times of war.

Yes, it's exactly like the internment camps of WWII. It is perfectly normal. In 50 years from now however the government will be saying sorry and paying huge amounts of money to the families of these people who were imprisoned falsely. You'd think they would of learned.

"war (wôr) KEY

NOUN:

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict. " - American Heritage Dictionary

Terrorists are a party. They arm themselves with unconventional devices, and use these devices to inflict death upon the populace of certain coutries and their governments. I'd say that this is a war, and if you are in a country that has suffered from one of these attacks, I can't see how you don't see this as a war.

That definition is loose enough so that we were ALREADY at war ever since some brilliant bloke came up with the phrase, "War on Crime." I mean, hey, criminals are parties as well, no? They inflict death on the populace, no? Same with the "War on Drugs." I guess we were always at war, and always will be until crime and drugs are eliminated, eh?

Yes, it's exactly like the internment camps of WWII. It is perfectly normal. In 50 years from now however the government will be saying sorry and paying huge amounts of money to the families of these people who were imprisoned falsely. You'd think they would of learned.

...if i'm not mistaken, weren't ALL asian (or japanese) americans placed in internment camps?

vs. this, where only those suspected of terrorist activity (IE, being bad guys) may be placed in custody?

If we were simply herding all arab americans into camps, then a fair comparison could be made... but as far as is known, we're not going to be arresting people simply for being middle-eastern... they have to do something to get our attention. (and it had better be solid evidence... civilian eye-witness accounts, or accounts by police, fingerprints where they shouldn't be, etc.)

Good God in heaven. You must be joking or trolling.
It's not a police action that we are involved in. Whether you accept it or not, we are at war. We've been at war since Sept 11 2001. That's 4 years. Get used to it.
That is why Bush can do what he's doing. It's called war times powers.
Nonsense. You can't wage wars on intangible concepts like "Drug use" or "Terrorism" or "Poverty," at least not in the literal sense of the word, which is kind of importaint to justify these particular powers. Is it a conflict? Yes. Is it a war? No. Should the President have the rights of a wartime president in this context? certainly not.

Furthermore, your justification that it is a legitimate tactic because it has been used in the past is a shaky one at best. Just because something's been done in the past doesn't make it right. If it does, maybe we should mosey on back to the Dark Ages.

And yes, it is a police action we're involved in, because when you're talking about uprooting criminal elements within your own country, you're talking about using the police to do so because the US military is prohibited from engaging its own citizens, at least under these circumstances.

Also, I think the point of this whole thread might have something to do with the fact that the man has been held for three years without a trial. Say what you will about the legitimacy of the powers that put him there, three years is far too goddamn long a time to leave someone in a cell without actually bothering to figure out if they deserve to be there or not.

...if i'm not mistaken, weren't ALL asian (or japanese) americans placed in internment camps?

vs. this, where only those suspected of terrorist activity (IE, being bad guys) may be placed in custody?

If we were simply herding all arab americans into camps, then a fair comparison could be made... but as far as is known, we're not going to be arresting people simply for being middle-eastern... they have to do something to get our attention. (and it had better be solid evidence... civilian eye-witness accounts, or accounts by police, fingerprints where they shouldn't be, etc.)

Give it time...

This is normal. Don't worry.

This is a power that the President has in times of war. If a US citizen, associates with and supports (whether materially or in words) the enemy, he or she is giving up all rights he has as a US citizen. In fact, such person is renouncing their US citizenship.
If the President did not have this power, Hitler would have won World War II and the Jews would be extinct. It's something Presidents have always been able to do. In fact, other Presidents, including Lincoln, have exercised this power.
This presidential power is important for defending this country and for defending freedom.
The bit I've highlighted is balls. How did internment help the US win the war? The Japanese-American unit, the 442nd RCT, was the most highly decorated unit in US history. Interning those of Axis descent was foolish, as they were among the most loyal citizens...
Also, a humongous fuss is always made about Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. It may be a power they have, but that doesn't make it right. Not to mention the fact that the US is not at war. (The War on Terrorism is a war in the same sense the wars in Orwell's 1984 are wars...) Melkor said it so much better than I can, so I won't try and reiterate it.

"war (wôr) KEY

NOUN:

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict. " - American Heritage Dictionary

Terrorists are a party. They arm themselves with unconventional devices, and use these devices to inflict death upon the populace of certain coutries and their governments. I'd say that this is a war, and if you are in a country that has suffered from one of these attacks, I can't see how you don't see this as a war.

This is not WWI or II. This isn't the War in Vietnam. This is a war in every sense other than it does not have a frontline, and does not involve conquering by the party in questions (being the terrorists).

Many allied countries in Europe have seen these attacks in one form or another, as well as the United States. The population of Iraq sees it everyday when the insurgents bomb their own people. Is this a war? If it isn't, I'd like you to tell me how it falls outside of the definition.
Supposedly its not a war because Congress didn't declare war on a country. That's what their thinking seems to be.

Yes, it's exactly like the internment camps of WWII. It is perfectly normal. In 50 years from now however the government will be saying sorry and paying huge amounts of money to the families of these people who were imprisoned falsely. You'd think they would of learned.
Unlike the terrorists at Gitmo, the japs interred during WW II weren't guilty of anything.

Unlike the terrorists at Gitmo, the japs interred during WW II weren't guilty of anything.
If they were guilty, or even COULD be guilty, they'd be on trial. Which a very small minority of them are. The rest aren't. I wonder why?
And it's not a war, because you can't declare war on a noun. At least, not in SensibleLand...

No. No. No.

If the other side declares war on you and attacks you, then no Congressional declaration is needed because you are already at war.

There's more to being at war than it being made official by Congress.

actually i think bush and bin laden signed a declaration of war some time after '9/11'.i remember something about a handwriting expert analysing their signatures.but i may be mistaken,feel free to correct me anyone.

If they were guilty, or even COULD be guilty, they'd be on trial. Which a very small minority of them are. The rest aren't. I wonder why?
And it's not a war, because you can't declare war on a noun. At least, not in SensibleLand...
It is a war. We are at war with Al Qaeda. Have you heard of Al Qaeda? They the people who killed 3,000 people by attacking New York.


The process for determining the guilty of enemy combatants is not the same as it is for your ordinary street criminals. And Padilla is not just a street criminal.
If he was, the police would not have turned him over to the military. The guy is a terrorist and an enemy combatant. He had the plans and the means to carry out an attack on US citizens on US territory. Just because we stopped him before he could do it, does not mean he is innocent.

Determining his guilt does not require a trial. Due to the circumstances in which he was arrested and the reason he is being held.

If they were guilty, or even COULD be guilty, they'd be on trial. Which a very small minority of them are. The rest aren't. I wonder why?
And it's not a war, because you can't declare war on a noun. At least, not in SensibleLand...
War is never sensible. Former generations would understand this. But the current generations wouldn't cause for the last 30 years they've never had to fight for their freedoms. They've never had to pay for anything. They're used to having every thing handed to them for free.

If they were guilty, or even COULD be guilty, they'd be on trial. Which a very small minority of them are. The rest aren't. I wonder why?
And it's not a war, because you can't declare war on a noun. At least, not in SensibleLand...

...if they were on trial, they'd be free on bail... which means they'd be able to harm Average Joe.

...if they were on trial, they'd be free on bail... which means they'd be able to harm Average Joe.

One could say the same for any criminal! So whats the answer... raising the bail, or denying everyone a right to trial?

War is never sensible. Former generations would understand this. But the current generations wouldn't cause for the last 30 years they've never had to fight for their freedoms. They've never had to pay for anything. They're used to having every thing handed to them for free.

if was is never sensible, then we should have let Hitler and Mussolini just storm Europe... let Japan take over eastern Asia and the Pacific.

Sometimes war is warranted, when used to protect (or give) freedom of those under attack.

It is a war. We are at war with Al Qaeda. Have you heard of Al Qaeda? They the people who killed 3,000 people by attacking New York.


The process for determining the guilty of enemy combatants is not the same as it is for your ordinary street criminals. And Padilla is not just a street criminal.
If he was, the police would not have turned him over to the military. The guy is a terrorist and an enemy combatant. He had the plans and the means to carry out an attack on US citizens on US territory. Just because we stopped him before he could do it, does not mean he is innocent.

Determining his guilt does not require a trial. Due to the circumstances in which he was arrested and the reason he is being held.
I've heard of Al-Qaeda. So? To describe fighting with terrorists as a war both devalues the word war and legitimises their cause. Ever wonder why the British never called the Troubles a war?
Oh, that's a new one. Guilt determined by arrest? I'll bet you'd keep on chanting that until they came for you... The process for determining the guilt of 'enemy combatants' (god I loathe that phrase) should be the same as the process for an ordinary criminal, otherwise you devalue the rule of law.

*Note to self, do not piss off the president.*

One could say the same for any criminal! So whats the answer... raising the bail, or denying everyone a right to trial?

how about no bail? judges have the right to order a defendant to remain detained through trial, right?

how about no bail? judges have the right to order a defendant to remain detained through trial, right?

OK, that works.

But detaining for three years, with no trial, while just sorta assuming guilt, is a violation of one of the few things I like about the US justice system (innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial).

...if they were on trial, they'd be free on bail... which means they'd be able to harm Average Joe.
Not every criminal gets bail. If he's an extreme flight risk bail won't be set.

No branch of the government should logically have the power to unilaterally detain any person, citizen or non-citizen, indefinately. The judicial branch was created for the specific purpose of declaring things constitutional or unconstitutional, people guilty or not guilty. The ruling that the president has the ability to detain citizens indefinately to secure our "protection" from "terrorists" dooms America to the bowels of hell, history and philosophy books. Who is to judge who is a terrorist? Washington? Who is to judge what proof they have right or wrong, or if they even have proof? A "terrorist" is an entirely ambiguous term.

...if they were on trial, they'd be free on bail... which means they'd be able to harm Average Joe.
Hahaha. Come back when you know something about the legal system. You can be held without bail, and you can also be given a bail set somewhere in the trillions of dollars.

I agree that the president should have the ability to do this, but only if an investigation is being done full-time while he is being detained, and only if the intention to eventually prosecute can be solidly proven.

No. No. No.

If the other side declares war on you and attacks you, then no Congressional declaration is needed because you are already at war.

There's more to being at war than it being made official by Congress.
Wrong! In fact, the court specifically rejected the argument that the PRESIDENT has the unilateral power to declare a state of a war and detain people. Congress must first state that war exists, then he can exercise that power. I disagree with the reasoning, however, there is no reason in this case for the violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. No pressing reason, and if they can't give at the very least probable cause to hold him, he should walk.

Oh it start out with doing it to terrorists, but who's not to say that in 10 yrs if we dissent against the administration we can be arrested for terroristic ideas. So if i am liberal that doesn't like the republican in office and i say he is crap then i can be arrested for being a terrorist. God Bless America
Thanks Fuher Bush and your Naziesque Administration. :mp5:

*makes mental note to continue staying on the President's good side* ;)

For all those who think this is a good thing, please consider whether you'd think so had Kerry become President. The percentage difference between the two candidates was extremely small.

Do you really want to be giving the Democrats power to hold anyone they think is bad without limit or trial?

I knew this would come in handy.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/usa7rj.jpg

I've heard of Al-Qaeda. So? To describe fighting with terrorists as a war both devalues the word war and legitimises their cause. Ever wonder why the British never called the Troubles a war?
Oh, that's a new one. Guilt determined by arrest? I'll bet you'd keep on chanting that until they came for you... The process for determining the guilt of 'enemy combatants' (god I loathe that phrase) should be the same as the process for an ordinary criminal, otherwise you devalue the rule of law.
Your idea of the rule of law would be to cower before the terrorists and let them kill our people instead going after them where they are before they can kill our people.
The court system, while a noble idea, does not work in every situation and this is one of those situations in which simply putting them before a trial court will not do.

I knew this would come in handy.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/usa7rj.jpg

What happens if I disenchant it?

Wrong! In fact, the court specifically rejected the argument that the PRESIDENT has the unilateral power to declare a state of a war and detain people. Congress must first state that war exists, then he can exercise that power. I disagree with the reasoning, however, there is no reason in this case for the violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. No pressing reason, and if they can't give at the very least probable cause to hold him, he should walk.

The President has the power to use all means necessary to defend the US and its people. This includes power to detain enemies of the United States. Mr. Padilla is a self declared enemy of the United States. Bush is doing his job and detaining an enemy of America.
Congress didn't declare war under the mistaken guise that you can only declare war on a nation. I thought the same at the time. But having researched, I found that there is precedence for America declaring war against a nonstate actor. The Barbary Wars. Congress declared war on the pirates and their state sponsors along the Barbary Coast.
The conflict before us, bears more resemblance to that war than it does to either WWII or Vietnam. The only difference being that we have more power ful tech today than they did back then. So you can declare war on a nongovernment entity.

The appeals court clearly disagreed with your last point, as do I.

Your idea of the rule of law would be to cower before the terrorists and let them kill our people instead going after them where they are before they can kill our people.

As long as we're making up stuff about the other posters, I'll just go ahead and assume you were one of the "Hey let's just nuke the whole middle east!" people after 9/11.


The court system, while a noble idea, does not work in every situation and this is one of those situations in which simply putting them before a trial court will not do.

Oh, it "won't do." Yeah, we can't have justice. And fuck that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing too. It wouldn't do. I hope someone says that when you get arrested some day and everyone assumes you're guilty as fuck. And you'll be all, "Well, this is a situation where a trial will not do. Where's the chopping block, I want to rest my head somewhere!"

The President has the power to use all means necessary to defend the US and its people. This includes power to detain enemies of the United States. Mr. Padilla is a self declared enemy of the United States. Bush is doing his job and detaining an enemy of America.
Congress didn't declare war under the mistaken guise that you can only declare war on a nation. I thought the same at the time. But having researched, I found that there is precedence for America declaring war against a nonstate actor. The Barbary Wars. Congress declared war on the pirates and their state sponsors along the Barbary Coast.
The conflict before us, bears more resemblance to that war than it does to either WWII or Vietnam. The only difference being that we have more power ful tech today than they did back then. So you can declare war on a nongovernment entity.

The appeals court clearly disagreed with your last point, as do I.
"The ruling, however, did not go as far as the Administration had asked. The Court did not rely upon the President's claim that he has "inherent authority" as Commander in Chief to order the designation and detention of terrorist suspects. Rather, it relied only on the resolution Congress passed in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the President to respond. The Supreme Court similarly avoided the "inherent authority" claim when it upheld detention of citizens captured in foreign battle zones in its decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld -- so far, the only other case of detention of a citizen named as an "enemy combatant.""

Sorry?

For all those who think this is a good thing, please consider whether you'd think so had Kerry become President. The percentage difference between the two candidates was extremely small.

Do you really want to be giving the Democrats power to hold anyone they think is bad without limit or trial?
Mr. Padilla was not just an innocent American. He was not just a simple street criminal. He was a dangerously armed enemy of the US.
Don't confuse him with simple political opposition to Bush. Padilla is anti democrat. He would have no problem killing you or your family. He hates America. He wants all Americans dead. He was planning to kill large numbers of Americans. He had the cash. He had the bomb making materials. Hell, when they went into his apartment, they found a partially completed bomb and a hand book on how to make a radiological bomb. And you want this son of a bitch walking around as if he did nothing wrong?

Mr. Padilla was not just an innocent American. He was not just a simple street criminal. He was a dangerously armed enemy of the US.
Don't confuse him with simple political opposition to Bush. Padilla is anti democrat. He would have no problem killing you or your family. He hates America. He wants all Americans dead. He was planning to kill large numbers of Americans. He had the cash. He had the bomb making materials. Hell, when they went into his apartment, they found a partially completed bomb and a hand book on how to make a radiological bomb. And you want this son of a bitch walking around as if he did nothing wrong?

Here I thought you didn't want a trial, but you're going on like it's opening statements! OBJECTION.

As long as we're making up stuff about the other posters, I'll just go ahead and assume you were one of the "Hey let's just nuke the whole middle east!" people after 9/11.



Oh, it "won't do." Yeah, we can't have justice. And fuck that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing too. It wouldn't do. I hope someone says that when you get arrested some day and everyone assumes you're guilty as fuck. And you'll be all, "Well, this is a situation where a trial will not do. Where's the chopping block, I want to rest my head somewhere!"
As I stated earlier, you confusing support for terrorism with simple political dissent. Mr. Padilla, as everyone knows, was not engaged in simple political dissent. Political dissent does not involve making bombs to kill lots of Americans. Political dissent does not include planning the deaths of innocents Americans (or other civilians).
You are defending the wrong man.

Your idea of the rule of law would be to cower before the terrorists and let them kill our people instead going after them where they are before they can kill our people.
The court system, while a noble idea, does not work in every situation and this is one of those situations in which simply putting them before a trial court will not do.
Your idea of not cowering before terrorists is to give them what they want (to fundamentally change the US for the worst) by surrendering the freedoms people willingly gave their lives for, in order to secure yourself some possible (but by no means ensured) measure of increased safety.

Sorry but standing up for what the US is, not surrendering what others fought and died to give, not just to you, but to future generations, sounds much less like cowering than allowing the terrorists to change the US, just for some possible risk avoidance. People died for those freedoms you consider it cowardice to stand up for, and you want to give them up for safety...I suggest you have somehow gotten things backwards. If safety is worth more than freedom, and risking safety for freedom is cowardice, you must think the founders of the US were a bunch of chickens....

Mr. Padilla was not just an innocent American. He was not just a simple street criminal. He was a dangerously armed enemy of the US.
Don't confuse him with simple political opposition to Bush. Padilla is anti democrat. He would have no problem killing you or your family. He hates America. He wants all Americans dead. He was planning to kill large numbers of Americans. He had the cash. He had the bomb making materials. Hell, when they went into his apartment, they found a partially completed bomb and a hand book on how to make a radiological bomb. And you want this son of a bitch walking around as if he did nothing wrong?
You should have no trouble charging him with a crime then. Let me introduce you to my friend, the 6th amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

What happens if I disenchant it?
http://img342.imageshack.us/img342/632/racecard5nm.jpg

Here I thought you didn't want a trial, but you're going on like it's opening statements! OBJECTION.
heh. It does sound like one doesn't it. :p

Your idea of not cowering before terrorists is to give them what they want (to fundamentally change the US for the worst) by surrendering the freedoms people willingly gave their lives for, in order to secure yourself some possible (but by no means ensured) measure of increased safety.

Sorry but standing up for what the US is, not surrendering what others fought and died to give, not just to you, but to future generations, sounds much less like cowering than allowing the terrorists to change the US, just for some possible risk avoidance. People died for those freedoms you consider it cowardice to stand up for, and you want to give them up for safety...I suggest you have somehow gotten things backwards. If safety is worth more than freedom, and risking safety for freedom is cowardice, you must think the founders of the US were a bunch of chickens....
We are not talking about political dissent. We are not talking simple street theives. Hell we are not even talking about simple rapists. Nor are we talking about white collar crime.
We are talking about an act of war against the US. We are talking about treason.

From Ex Parte Milligan

1. Does the power of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus appertain to all the great departments of government concurrently, or to some only, and which of them?

2. If the power is concurrent, can its exercise by the executive or judicial department be restrained or regulated by act of Congress?

3. If the power appertains to Congress alone, or if Congress may control its exercise by the other departments, has that body so exercised its functions as to leave to the petitioners the privilege of the writ, or to entitle them to their discharge?

In considering the first question, that of the competency of the military tribunal for the trial of the petitioners upon those charges, let me first call attention to the dates of the transactions.

Let it be observed next, that for the same offences as those [71 U.S. 2, 29] set forth in the charges and specifications, the petitioners could have been tried and punished by the ordinary civil tribunals.

Let it also be remembered, that Indiana, at the time of this trial, was a peaceful State; the courts were all open; their processes had not been interrupted; the laws had their full sway.

Then let it be remembered that the petitioners were simple citizens, not belonging to the army or navy; not in any official position; not connected in any manner with the public service.

The evidence against them is not to be found in this record, and it is immaterial. Their guilt or their innocence does not affect the question of the competency of the tribunal by which they were judged.

Bearing in mind, therefore, the nature of the charges, and the time of the trial and sentence; bearing in mind, also, the presence and undisputed authority of the civil tribunals and the civil condition of the petitioners, we ask by what authority they were withdrawn from their natural judges?

What is a military commission? Originally, it appears to have been an advisory board of officers, convened for the purpose of informing the conscience of the commanding officer, in cases where he might act for himself if he chose. General Scott resorted to it in Mexico for his assistance in governing conquered places. The first mention of it in an act of Congress appears to have been in the act of July 22, 1861, where the general commanding a separate department, or a detached army, was authorized to appoint a military board, or commission, of not less than three, or more than five officers, to examine the qualifications and conduct of commissioned officers of volunteers.

Subsequently, military commissions are mentioned in four acts of Congress, but in none of them is any provision made for their organization, regulation, or jurisdiction, further than that it is declared that in time of war or rebellion, spies may be tried by a general court-martial or military commission; and that 'persons who are in the military service of [71 U.S. 2, 30] the United States, and subject to the Articles of War,' may also be tried by the same, for murder, and certain other infamous crimes.

These acts do not confer upon military commissions jurisdiction over any persons other than those in the military service and spies.

There being, then, no act of Congress for the establishment of the commission, it depended entirely upon the executive will for its creation and support. This brings up the true question now before the court: Has the President, in time of war, upon his own mere will and judgment, the power to bring before his military officers any person in the land, and subject him to trial and punishment, even to death? The proposition is stated in this form, because it really amounts to this. If the President has this awful power, whence does he derive it? He can exercise no authority whatever but that which the Constitution of the country gives him. Our system knows no authority beyond or above the law. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds every thought of the President's having any prerogative, as representative of the people, or as interpreter of the popular will. He is elected by the people to perform those functions, and those only, which the Constitution of his country, and the laws made pursuant to that Constitution, confer.

The plan of argument which I propose is, first to examine the text of the Constitution. That instrument, framed with the greatest deliberation, after thirteen years' experience of war and peace, should be accepted as the authentic and final expression of the public judgment, regarding that form and scope of government, and those guarantees of private rights, which legal science, political philosophy, and the experience of previous times had taught as the safest and most perfect. All attempts to explain it away, or to evade or pervert it, should be discountenanced and resisted. Beyond the line of such an argument, everything else ought, in strictness, to be superfluous. But, I shall endeavor to show, further, that the theory of our government, for which I am contending, [71 U.S. 2, 31] is the only one compatible with civil liberty; and, by what I may call an historical argument, that this theory is as old as the nation, and that even in the constitutional monarchies of England and France that notion of executive power, which would uphold military commissions, like the one against which I am speaking, has never been admitted.

What are the powers and attributes of the presidential office? They are written in the second article of the Constitution, and, so far as they relate to the present question, they are these: He is vested with the 'executive power;' he is 'commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States;' he is to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed;' and he takes this oath: 'I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' The 'executive power' mentioned in the Constitution is the executive power of the United States. The President is not clothed with the executive power of the States. He is not clothed with any executive power, except as he is specifically directed by some other part of the Constitution, or by an act of Congress.

He is to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' He is to execute the laws by the means and in the manner which the laws themselves prescribe.

The oath of office cannot be considered as a grant of power. Its effect is merely to superadd a religious sanction to what would otherwise be his official duty, and to bind his conscience against any attempt to usurp power or overthrow the Constitution.

There remains, then, but a single clause to discuss, and that is the one which makes him commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the States when called into the federal service. The question, therefore, is narrowed down to this: Does the authority to command an army carry with it authority to arrest and [71 U.S. 2, 32] try by court-martial civilians-by which I mean persons not in the martial forces; not impressed by law with a martial character? The question is easily answered. To command an army, whether in camp, or on the march, or in battle, requires the control of no other persons than the officers, soldiers, and camp followers. It can hardly be contended that, if Congress neglects to find subsistence, the commander-in-chief may lawfully take it from our own citizens. It cannot be supposed that, if Congress fails to provide the means of recruiting, the commander-in-chief may lawfully force the citizens into the ranks. What is called the war power of the President, if indeed there be any such thing, is nothing more than the power of commanding the armies and fleets which Congress causes to be raised. To command them is to direct their operations.

Much confusion of ideas has been produced by mistaking executive power for kingly power. Because in monarchial countries the kingly office includes the executive, it seems to have been sometimes inferred that, conversely, the executive carries with it the kingly prerogative. Our executive is in no sense a king, even for four years.

He wasn't a member of Al-Queda, was he?

As I stated earlier, you confusing support for terrorism with simple political dissent. Mr. Padilla, as everyone knows, was not engaged in simple political dissent. Political dissent does not involve making bombs to kill lots of Americans. Political dissent does not include planning the deaths of innocents Americans (or other civilians).
You are defending the wrong man.

I'm not defending a man. I'm defending the right to trial. Doesn't matter who. I don't care about Padilla in any way nor do I even know what he is supposed to have been plotting - if its that obvious, he should be tried. Publically. And I'm in favor of public executions, when it comes down to it. I don't think the death penalty works in this country unless its really making an example, but as far as I know all executions happen in closed areas with few onlookers and only after years of appeals and media blowovers.

And yes, the system whereby convicts sit on death row for years waiting trial sucks. But in this case... he's ALREADY waiting for years. So, might as well have a nice big trial at the end of it, no?

You should have no trouble charging him with a crime then. Let me introduce you to my friend, the 6th amendment:
The 6th does not apply Mr. Padilla, an enemy of the United States who stated he does not even accept the American legal system. It was not just a crime that you try in courts. When there is war, enemies who are captured are almost never have a right to the court system. Instead they are tried before military tribunals. And that is the process going on at Guantanomo. And that is the process that needs to apply to Mr. Padilla, a man who hates America so much, that he was plotting to kill thousands of Americans at a Southern California amusement park and other places inside the United States.

From Ex Parte Milligan

He wasn't a member of Al-Queda, was he?
yes he was.

We are not talking about political dissent.
Neither am I, is there some reason you mention this....there are after all more things we are not discussing than there are things that we are discussing?

We are not talking simple street theives. Hell we are not even talking about simple rapists. Nor are we talking about white collar crime.
We are talking about an act of war against the US. We are talking about treason.
And your point is?

You were implying that people are cowards because they hold the principal of freedom, and their understanding of the duty they have to uphold freedom, even if that means accepting some risk to their person.

And they say there is no New World Order...

I'm not defending a man. I'm defending the right to trial. Doesn't matter who. I don't care about Padilla in any way nor do I even know what he is supposed to have been plotting - if its that obvious, he should be tried. Publically. And I'm in favor of public executions, when it comes down to it. I don't think the death penalty works in this country unless its really making an example, but as far as I know all executions happen in closed areas with few onlookers and only after years of appeals and media blowovers.

And yes, the system whereby convicts sit on death row for years waiting trial sucks. But in this case... he's ALREADY waiting for years. So, might as well have a nice big trial at the end of it, no?
But as a combatant, he has no right to trial. And the previously cited material does not apply to his case either.

You guys might as well be arguing for the release of all pedophiles. After all, many of them haven't been tried yet. And many of them are still being treated like criminals long after they've done their time.

Neither am I, is there some reason you mention this....there are after all more things we are not discussing than there are things that we are discussing?


And your point is?

You were implying that people are cowards because they hold the principal of freedom, and their understanding of the duty they have to uphold freedom, even if that means accepting some risk to their person.
Defending freedom means joining the army and picking up a gun and going and killing the enemies of America. It is not going around and screaming "America is an evil empire".

But as a combatant, he has no right to trial. And the previously cited material does not apply to his case either.

And I'm just supposed to take your word that he was a "combatant?" I don't think so.


You guys might as well be arguing for the release of all pedophiles. After all, many of them haven't been tried yet. And many of them are still being treated like criminals long after they've done their time.

NO ONE IS ARGUING for his "release." You seem to keep coming back to this notion that we want this guy "walking around" etc. It's a complete strawman, enough already.

yes he was.
So, here's the critical distinction: Both Padilla and Milligan allegedly took up arms against the U.S. But whereas Padilla -- not a member of Al Qaeda -- is alleged to have been "associated with" Al Qaeda, Milligan was "unaffiliated with the Confederate army," but was instead "merely" "associated with an anti-Union secret society."


Wrong again.

Defending freedom means joining the army and picking up a gun and going and killing the enemies of America. It is not going around and screaming "America is an evil empire".
Wow, talk about melodramatics!
Defending freedom only means picking up a gun and killing enemies of America, in those cases where not doing so would result in a loss of freedom. It also means accepting some risks in order to avoid impinging on people's liberty, or risking such impingment by setting precedents that might latter be used to deny the rights and liberty of a person who has not commited any crime.

What on earth 'America is an evil empire' has got to do with anything in this conversation I do not know. Although I can say that it suggests to me you have no sound argument, and not even a strong inductive argument to present, and so figure that if you confuse the conversation with hyperbole and strawmen, people might not notice that your arguments lack substance. Why else would you bother with such a 'non-argument' as 'doing something no one in this thread is doing, or suggesting, or even discussing is not defending freedom'....no kidding, neither is doing a hand stand while wearing pink and green stripped clown pants. You might ask what handstands and clown pants have got to do with the issue at hand. Well they are as relevent as screaming 'America is an evil empire', which is to say not relevent at all.

I'd like to ask what people have to say about the continued detainment of people that whoever is in charge of detaining people at Guantanamo has deemed innocent.

Mr. Padilla was not just an innocent American.

Hey, who needs to mess about with this whole trial malarky, when The South Pacific can sort out who is innocent or guilty for us instead?

I'd like to ask what people have to say about the continued detainment of people that whoever is in charge of detaining people at Guantanamo has deemed innocent.
It sucks...and yes that is the cleaned up version...

eh, we weren't using the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments anyway. nobody even misses the 1st, 4th, 9th, or 10th. but they'll have to take away my right to a jury in civil cases out of my cold dead fingers.

Hey, who needs to mess about with this whole trial malarky, when The South Pacific can sort out who is innocent or guilty for us instead?

think of the amount of money we'll save in court costs and lawyers

eh, we weren't using the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments anyway. nobody even misses the 1st, 4th, 9th, or 10th. but they'll have to take away my right to a jury in civil cases out of my cold dead fingers.


Again... I say:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/usa7rj.jpg

Seriously, the constitution barely has weight anymore. It has been removed from play.

An interesting article... in that "freedom used to mean something in this country" way (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html)



I suppose someone will come along and reassure me that this is nothing to worry about. Far be it for me to worry, but does this worry anyone else? The country is starting to look like a Star Wars movie or something...

Eh, another Republican set the precendent centuries ago... suspended habeus corpus, jailed those who spoke out against him... ;) and he graces the five dollar bill.

Eh, another Republican set the precendent centuries ago... suspended habeus corpus, jailed those who spoke out against him... ;) and he graces the five dollar bill.But that's from the days when Republicans were still liberal! :p
On a serious note, that's actually something I've always hated Lincoln for.

Again... I say:

I'm not quoting the image in order to save space, but you can see it here (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/usa7rj.jpg)

Seriously, the constitution barely has weight anymore. It has been removed from play.Brilliant! :D

Eh, another Republican set the precendent centuries ago... suspended habeus corpus, jailed those who spoke out against him... ;) and he graces the five dollar bill.

at least his excuse was semi-plausible. still was a bad idea, but at least it wasn't justified by a war on abstract nouns

The guy is a terrorist and an enemy combatant. He had the plans and the means to carry out an attack on US citizens on US territory. Just because we stopped him before he could do it, does not mean he is innocent.

No evidence was ever released to indicate that he was one. They just said he was and chucked him in a hole and threw away the key. Do you see anything wrong with this? I do. That means they can claim anyone they want to be an "enemy combatant" and a "terrorist" and lock them up forever. Or better yet, make them "disappear" without even bothering to have any proof of guilt.

I can see this being expanded to cover whatever prejudices a president has to lock up anyone he doesn't like.

And people like you would be cheering on...

Your idea of the rule of law would be to cower before the terrorists and let them kill our people instead going after them where they are before they can kill our people.
The court system, while a noble idea, does not work in every situation and this is one of those situations in which simply putting them before a trial court will not do.
It works over here in Ireland, and it worked for the past thirty years...

I just hope George W bush doesn't start thinking he's King George I of USA, Emperor of the Holy American Empire.

ugh this doesn't surprise me...grrrr

That definition is loose enough so that we were ALREADY at war ever since some brilliant bloke came up with the phrase, "War on Crime." I mean, hey, criminals are parties as well, no? They inflict death on the populace, no? Same with the "War on Drugs." I guess we were always at war, and always will be until crime and drugs are eliminated, eh?

touche. Point taken.

Damn it. They need to change the wording from war on terror to "war on Al Qaeda and it's allies".

Course that would put us at war with such nations as Venezuela.

at least his excuse was semi-plausible. still was a bad idea, but at least it wasn't justified by a war on abstract nouns
And even in his case, he couldn't jail citizens because they went around with the wrong people (ex parte milligan, as I've quoted before).

watch out pro-choicers

watch out pro-choicers

You're pro-choice???

*picks up red phone, directly linked to Bush*

I found another one, sir!

;)

I'm Bush like. These "tourism" treats have got to be controled. One of the ways that we are fighting the "tourist" is by going to war with "Iriq", so that we dont have to face the "tourism" threats here. If I suspect a U.S. citizen of being a "tourist" then they are one, I'm never wrong. Just like when I said there were Weapons of mass destruction in ..., uh just like I said that there were definet links between sadam and uh um... just like when I said there were "tourist" threats in "Iriq". So all you laberals who just want rights so that "tourist" can use them against us are only helping the enemy.

The President has the power to use all means necessary to defend the US and its people. This includes power to detain enemies of the United States.


Really? Does that include the power to unilaterally decide who is an enemy?

I just hope George W bush doesn't start thinking he's King George I of USA, Emperor of the Holy American Empire.


Too late. He already does.

Really? Does that include the power to unilaterally decide who is an enemy?
yes. Because the President has information that neither you or I are privy to.

yes. Because the President has information that neither you or I are privy to.

or at least says he does.

he also says that jesus tells him to kill people.

yes. Because the President has information that neither you or I are privy to.


Oh, right. Like the WMD's in Iraq... no wait. Or the Iraqi link to al Qaeda... no, wait. Never mind.

-snip-

he also says that jesus tells him to kill people.

Source? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Source? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam..."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788

there were some other places too, but i don't remember off the top of my head.

A US citizen on US soil is protected, or at least supposed to be protected by the US Constitution. He's entitled to due process by the law of the land. The law may be murky when it comes to foreign fighters captured on a foreign battlefield, but not when it comes to US citizens at home.

and according to the Supreme court even the people in Guantinmo have the right to due process and so they are being given dates

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam..."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788

there were some other places too, but i don't remember off the top of my head.
another case of someone twisting Bush's words.

Here's the whole qoute:
""God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

First off he was referring to the Isreali-Palestinian Peace Process and was asking Abbas for his help.

Second the people in that part of the world, unlike Europeans, are deeply religious people. There was a movie. It was a western where this army guy was sent to get these Indians to do what the British (or Canadian) government wanted them to do. At one point, they see a vision of a ship created by the way light bounces off the earth and the wheather conditions. Mind you, the Indians were far inland when they saw the steamship. They did not know what it was. So they fell to the ground and started praying to it and worshipping it. The guy, took advantage saying it was just example of the all powerful Queen who he represented and who had spoken to him sending him on his mission to the indians. He told the indians that if they didn't do what he told them, the all powerful goddess Queen would strike them all dead. And it worked. The indians did everything he wanted.

another case of someone twisting Bush's words.

Here's the whole qoute:
""God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

First off he was referring to the Isreali-Palestinian Peace Process and was asking Abbas for his help.

Second the people in that part of the world, unlike Europeans, are deeply religious people. There was a movie. It was a western where this army guy was sent to get these Indians to do what the British (or Canadian) government wanted them to do. At one point, they see a vision of a ship created by the way light bounces off the earth and the wheather conditions. Mind you, the Indians were far inland when they saw the steamship. They did not know what it was. So they fell to the ground and started praying to it and worshipping it. The guy, took advantage saying it was just example of the all powerful Queen who he represented and who had spoken to him sending him on his mission to the indians. He told the indians that if they didn't do what he told them, the all powerful goddess Queen would strike them all dead. And it worked. The indians did everything he wanted.
See, but the rest of his quote does nothing to offset the fact that he's claiming God is telling him what foreign policies to pursue... and more to the point, that God is telling him to make war. Nobody's twisting W's words in this instance. The man is a wingnut.

And movies aren't history. Just a heads-up, there.

See, but the rest of his quote does nothing to offset the fact that he's claiming God is telling him what foreign policies to pursue... and more to the point, that God is telling him to make war. Nobody's twisting W's words in this instance. The man is a wingnut.

And movies aren't history. Just a heads-up, there.

I never said movies were history. I was using it as an example of someone from a modern society using religion to get people from a more primitive society to do what he wants them to do.

And it is God's will for Bush to wage war on the terrorists and their supporters.
Anyone who does not seek God's wisdom is the real wingnut.
The presidency is too big for people with athiestic backgrounds. No human can handle it alone. That is why no athiest has ever been nor ever will be elected President. Further, it is why Bush talks to God. And God listens to him and talks back.
The enemies of America hate Bush because Bush is doing God's will against the forces of evil. You are either good or you evil. There is no middle ground.
To be in the middle is to be evil. There are no gray areas. That is how Bush sees the world. People don't like that because they like to get away with doing evil and dark acts. And any one who says they can't do what is bad, is considered to be their enemy. That is why some people hate Bush.

Whether or not you believe in a religion really has no bearing. The fact is that just because Bush's policies are determined by his relationship with God, does not make him a bad President. There are a hell of a lot of non religious Presidents who have done far worse than Bush has. Nor can you say its a Republican thing. Carter was also a Christian fundamentalist President.

Whether you like it or not, most nation's policies are based on religion. Which is best considering the opposite of which we have plenty of examples. Stalin's purges. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. The genocides committed by the Khmer Rouge. The atrocities of athiest regimes not only eastern europe but in south and central america as well as in Africa.

Look at the history, when faced with a choice between athiest leaders who tend to persecute everyone and religious leaders who (even if they claim to talk to God) show more tolerance for people within their borders, the people will always choose the religious because people feel safer when a religious person is in power these days.

And it is God's will for Bush to wage war on the terrorists and their supporters.

I stopped reading here.

I stopped reading here.
Hey, God told me to vote for Bush. Just because he don't talk to you is no reason for you to be jealous.

Hey, God told me to vote for Bush.

I did no such thing.

By the way, congratulations on being an awesome troll. I've only just realised it myself.

It works over here in Ireland, and it worked for the past thirty years...

...and the one time we tried doing away with it in the North and using Internment instead was a complete disaster.

Wouldn't it be crazy if Padilla turned out to be innocent? Of course we'll never know that because the government won't even press charges. Still it really says something about the "freedoms" they're supposedly trying to defend.

I did no such thing.

By the way, congratulations on being an awesome troll. I've only just realised it myself.
Actually he did.

Actually he did.

I think I would have remembered something like that...

Oh, wait...I wasn't high, was I? Yeah, I could have told you to vote for a bush while high. I probably meant a thorn bush.

A US citizen on US soil is protected, or at least supposed to be protected by the US Constitution. He's entitled to due process by the law of the land. The law may be murky when it comes to foreign fighters captured on a foreign battlefield, but not when it comes to US citizens at home.

Read the Patriot Act.

I never said movies were history. I was using it as an example of someone from a modern society using religion to get people from a more primitive society to do what he wants them to do.

And it is God's will for Bush to wage war on the terrorists and their supporters.
Anyone who does not seek God's wisdom is the real wingnut.
The presidency is too big for people with athiestic backgrounds. No human can handle it alone. That is why no athiest has ever been nor ever will be elected President. Further, it is why Bush talks to God. And God listens to him and talks back.
The enemies of America hate Bush because Bush is doing God's will against the forces of evil. You are either good or you evil. There is no middle ground.
To be in the middle is to be evil. There are no gray areas. That is how Bush sees the world. People don't like that because they like to get away with doing evil and dark acts. And any one who says they can't do what is bad, is considered to be their enemy. That is why some people hate Bush.

Whether or not you believe in a religion really has no bearing. The fact is that just because Bush's policies are determined by his relationship with God, does not make him a bad President. There are a hell of a lot of non religious Presidents who have done far worse than Bush has. Nor can you say its a Republican thing. Carter was also a Christian fundamentalist President.

Whether you like it or not, most nation's policies are based on religion. Which is best considering the opposite of which we have plenty of examples. Stalin's purges. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. The genocides committed by the Khmer Rouge. The atrocities of athiest regimes not only eastern europe but in south and central america as well as in Africa.

Look at the history, when faced with a choice between athiest leaders who tend to persecute everyone and religious leaders who (even if they claim to talk to God) show more tolerance for people within their borders, the people will always choose the religious because people feel safer when a religious person is in power these days.


Wow, you're really a great troll, after all... :mad:

...unless you're serious. You're not serious, are you? :(

another case of someone twisting Bush's words.

Here's the whole qoute:
""God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

in order for that to be 'twisting' we have to assume bush's alleged status as a deeply religious person is all a sham. not even i am that cynical.

and the full quote makes his god look awfully damn callous. god says go kill some people, but when it comes to peace in palestine, god could take it or leave it. god thinks that maybe presidential elections are of equal importance.

Wow, you're really a great troll, after all... :mad:

...unless you're serious. You're not serious, are you? :(
Trolling is posting something just to piss people off.

These are my actual beliefs and are as valid as yours.

And it is God's will for Bush to wage war on the terrorists and their supporters.
Anyone who does not seek God's wisdom is the real wingnut.

Oddly enough, the terrorists feel exactly the same as you do! Nice to know you're all into killing each other cuz you think God tells you to. Maybe you could volunteer for the next Boeing flight to the mid-east...

in order for that to be 'twisting' we have to assume bush's alleged status as a deeply religious person is all a sham. not even i am that cynical.

and the full quote makes his god look awfully damn callous. god says go kill some people, but when it comes to peace in palestine, god could take it or leave it. god thinks that maybe presidential elections are of equal importance.
actually the person I qouted was twisting the words.
There are circumstances where God has told people to go kill people because the people he said to kill committed an evil horrendous act.
The war in Iraq was necessary for peace in the middle east. Without it, there would have been no Israeli withdrawal from the west bank or Gaza (remember that Sharon was stubbornly against it). The PA would not have reigned in the Palestinian groups (in fact it took the death of Arafat, a man who was opposed to Bush).
Not to mention the fact that as a result of Iraq, democracy is now flowering in the middle east.

Oddly enough, the terrorists feel exactly the same as you do! Nice to know you're all into killing each other cuz you think God tells you to. Maybe you could volunteer for the next Boeing flight to the mid-east...
Except that God is on our side while Satan is on their side.

actually the person I qouted was twisting the words.
There are circumstances where God has told people to go kill people because the people he said to kill committed an evil horrendous act.
The war in Iraq was necessary for peace in the middle east. Without it, there would have been no Israeli withdrawal from the west bank or Gaza (remember that Sharon was stubbornly against it). The PA would not have reigned in the Palestinian groups (in fact it took the death of Arafat, a man who was opposed to Bush).
Not to mention the fact that as a result of Iraq, democracy is now flowering in the middle east.
Hint: God only speaks to the mentally insane. Even the church recognizes this.

Except that God is on our side while Satan is on their side.


Except that that's exactly what they say too.

Meanwhile, your post rips on atheists, as if the only real bad guys in all this are those who don't think they have a personal hotline to God's Holy Waterbed. Well it's not "unbelievers" that were driving a fucking plane into those towers, guy.

Hint: God only speaks to the mentally insane. Even the church recognizes this.
That's trolling.

That's trolling.
No, it isn't. We have a name for people who hear voices in their heads: the insane.

Except that that's exactly what they say too.

Meanwhile, your post rips on atheists, as if the only real bad guys in all this are those who don't think they have a personal hotline to God's Holy Waterbed. Well it's not "unbelievers" that were driving a fucking plane into those towers, guy.
They are wrong.

The post was not meant to rip on athiests. Only to show that athiest governments do not necessarily produce freedom or peace.
The war on terror is a war between good and evil. The post said that it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not.
Not believing does not make you a bad person necessarily. However, unless you are a believer, you cannot count on God's protection (or his blessings for that matter).
Further, what you say about the other side claiming to have God on their side was true at first but was exposed as a lie. That is why the other side is now blowing up mosques and muslims instead of focusing on christians. Because the Muslim peoples of the world have realized that the terrorists are on the side of Satan. So now the terrorists are now terrorizing the islamic world becuase the people of that world now refuse to support the terrorists.

There are two sides to the war:
God's side and Satan's side. And it is incumbent on every man and woman and child to choose sides while they can. Being athiest or being agnostic is not going to save you from evil. The terrorists will not let you go just because you tell them you don't believe.
The terrorists know they are allied Satan. They also know their time is short. Hence their attacks on religious and holy sites of not only christians but muslims. It is the same tactic they have been using in India for the last 40 years.

Except that God is on our side while Satan is on their side.
And Satan cheats.

No, it isn't. We have a name for people who hear voices in their heads: the insane.
yes it is cause you saying it with the intent of provoking an angry reaction.

And Satan cheats.
and decieves.

yes it is cause you saying it with the intent of provoking an angry reaction.
Nope. I'm saying that people who think god talks to them need to have a nice little chat with a psychiatrist. I suggest you go and visit one. Or talk to your priest, they'll either make you a saint or tell you the same exact thing.

Except that God is on our side while Satan is on their side.

If God is on the US's side, why did they have a tank called 'Satan' in WWII?

They are wrong.

"They're wrong. They're infidels and must die!"

"No, THEY're wrong. They're terrorists and must die!"

"Allah's on our side!"

"God's on OUR side!"

"No, ours!"

"No, OURS!"

:rolleyes:

What a bunch of childish bullshit. It'd be funny, if that kind of thinking didn't lead to 9/11 in the first place.

This thread is NOT about whose God has the bigger dick, people. You want to troll and flamebait and yammer on about that shit, do it in some other thread. It's not like there's any lack of religious threads on this forum.

Christ, people.

Nope. I'm saying that people who think god talks to them need to have a nice little chat with a psychiatrist. I suggest you go and visit one. Or talk to your priest, they'll either make you a saint or tell you the same exact thing.
there's a word for people like you. It's called anti religious bigotry.

there's a word for people like you. It's called anti religious bigotry.
Is it? I wasn't aware of any major religion that went to such lengths to think that a regular person would be talked to by god. I know most religions would burn such a person who dared claim that at the stake.


Is the catholic church an 'anti religious bigot' now?

you can guarantee, people will start to disappear,

OH< WAIT!!!

they already have. hundreds of Arabs, Muslims, and SW Asians
have been detained, without charge, and without us knowing who
they are.


This is 2005 folks,
and such backwards thinking such as "the state is worth more than
the individual" still exists.
And we thought that was why we struggled against the Soviet Union?

Is it? I wasn't aware of any major religion that went to such lengths to think that a regular person would be talked to by god. I know most religions would burn such a person who dared claim that at the stake.


Is the catholic church an 'anti religious bigot' now?
catholics don't teach that officially
that is just your personal belief.

Most denominations teach that God talks to those who are pure and willing to listen.

catholics don't teach that officially
that is just your personal belief.

Most denominations teach that God talks to those who are pure and willing to listen.
Seeing as how they have burned people for saying that in the past, I don't think it's my 'personal belief'

This thread is NOT about whose God has the bigger dick, people.

Given that God and Allah are one and the same, presumably they have the same size of dick.

The motto of the reign of George II

"l'etat, c'est moi!"

Seeing as how they have burned people for saying that in the past, I don't think it's my 'personal belief'
eh no. it is your personal belief.
The people they burned at the stake were people accused of witchcraft and heresy.

Even back then, there was no Catholic rules against speaking to God. In fact the catholic church has a record of recognizing that some people do recieve messages from God.
Further, they don't burn people at the stake anymore. You cannot claim the church of today is the same as it was back then.

Given that God and Allah are one and the same, presumably they have the same size of dick.

Monotheist Deities aren't supposed to have sex organs. Religious fundies must be sucking on something else.

The motto of the reign of George II

"l'etat, c'est moi!"
The country, it is mine?

eh no. it is your personal belief.
The people they burned at the stake were people accused of witchcraft and heresy.

Didn't they try to silence Gallileo because he said the world wasn't the center of the universe? And besides, the accusations of witchcraft and heresy were on very, very flimsy grounds. More likely, they just didn't like the looks of them. If you were beautiful, exotic or just didn't conform to the standard norms back then, you were in a world of pain if the Church caught you.


Further, they don't burn people at the stake anymore. You cannot claim the church of today is the same as it was back then.

True, they don't burn people at the stake anymore, but they are certainly going out of their way to make sure everyone who doesn't conform to their beliefs get a ship full of hate.

Non-christians, gays, non-whites (more likely racism though) and biological scientists are among them I think.

People don't like that because they like to get away with doing evil and dark acts. And any one who says they can't do what is bad, is considered to be their enemy. That is why some people hate Bush.

Is that what you believe Bush thinks or your own opinion? It came after the bit about what he thinks so it's hard to tell.


Whether you like it or not, most nation's policies are based on religion. Which is best considering the opposite of which we have plenty of examples. Stalin's purges. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. The genocides committed by the Khmer Rouge. The atrocities of athiest regimes not only eastern europe but in south and central america as well as in Africa.

Bah, you're just taking the worst examples. Singapore has a pretty unreligious government. They're getting along just fine. Switzerland might provide the guards for the pope, but I don't hear them basing their government on the Church. Religion based governments are not the only way of creating functional and successful governments.

You are either unaware of these governments or are being willfully ignorant. Of the latter, there is no excuse.


Look at the history, when faced with a choice between athiest leaders who tend to persecute everyone and religious leaders who (even if they claim to talk to God) show more tolerance for people within their borders, the people will always choose the religious because people feel safer when a religious person is in power these days.

Not really. The usual reason why people choose religious leaders is because they tend to spout crap like "if you choose me, god will ensure a place in heaven for you. If not, you go straight to hell".

And the people believe them...

Didn't they try to silence Gallileo because he said the world wasn't the center of the universe? And besides, the accusations of witchcraft and heresy were on very, very flimsy grounds. More likely, they just didn't like the looks of them. If you were beautiful, exotic or just didn't conform to the standard norms back then, you were in a world of pain if the Church caught you.



True, they don't burn people at the stake anymore, but they are certainly going out of their way to make sure everyone who doesn't conform to their beliefs get a ship full of hate.

Non-christians, gays, non-whites (more likely racism though) and biological scientists are among them I think.

Nonwhites is falsely included. They don't care about skin color. From a non catholic perspective you perhaps have a point about the others. But that is due to their teachings.

Is that what you believe Bush thinks or your own opinion? It came after the bit about what he thinks so it's hard to tell.



Bah, you're just taking the worst examples. Singapore has a pretty unreligious government. They're getting along just fine. Switzerland might provide the guards for the pope, but I don't hear them basing their government on the Church. Religion based governments are not the only way of creating functional and successful governments.

You are either unaware of these governments or are being willfully ignorant. Of the latter, there is no excuse.



Not really. The usual reason why people choose religious leaders is because they tend to spout crap like "if you choose me, god will ensure a place in heaven for you. If not, you go straight to hell".

And the people believe them...

1. Personal opinion.

2. Well I'm sure you can find worst case examples of religious regimes being guilty of the same. For example Iran. I was just pointing out that being religious does not make a person a bad or incompetent leader which is what the other guy seemed to be saying. The swiss are protestant as far as I know.

3. The reason people choose religious leaders these days is that they come off as being more compassionate for the average guy. Though what you say used to be true and in some parts of the worlds still is. But not in first world nations like America (or Canada, or Japan, or Europe for that matter). Almost all the leaders of the first world claim some type of religious belief system.

what does this have to do with the president detaining people?

Allowing persons to be imprisoned without a speedy trial is pure Stalanism as far as I'm concerned. Authorities have the power to detain individuals long enough to stop suspected terrorist activity. Keeping them for years is antithetical to America's stated purposes. Home of the free? Not anymore!

Stick with the Constitution, please.

Allowing persons to be imprisoned without a speedy trial is pure Stalanism as far as I'm concerned. Authorities have the power to detain individuals long enough to stop suspected terrorist activity. Keeping them for years is antithetical to America's stated purposes. Home of the free? Not anymore!

Stick with the Constitution, please.
by holding them they preventing terrorist activity. Since we been keeping them at gitmo there has not been another attack on the US.
It's not free for the terrorists.

1. Personal opinion.

You're one of those people who can't see the color grey can you?


2. Well I'm sure you can find worst case examples of religious regimes being guilty of the same. For example Iran. I was just pointing out that being religious does not make a person a bad or incompetent leader which is what the other guy seemed to be saying. The swiss are protestant as far as I know.

The Vatican wasn't all that pretty either. The only reason why they aren't all powerful now is because they traded up that power for bare independence back then in the Mussolini days.


3. The reason people choose religious leaders these days is that they come off as being more compassionate for the average guy.

More compassionate for the average guy? Only if you happen to be straight, white and ultra-orthodox. You can't pretend those lunatics who go around saying stuff like the 9-11 attacks and the disaster at NO were "Gods will" because "God hates gays/blacks/sinners/jews/etc" don't exist. And there are a fair bit of them as religious leaders.

Where's the compassion in that?


Though what you say used to be true and in some parts of the worlds still is. But not in first world nations like America (or Canada, or Japan, or Europe for that matter).

America has it's own Christian extremists who advocate death and destruction of people they don't like i.e. gays, non-Christians, etc. I'm not saying that there aren't just as bad cases in the other camps, but you can't deny that your own camp is all squeeky clean.


Almost all the leaders of the first world claim some type of religious belief system.

But not all. It proves that a religious belief system is NOT needed to form a succesful government.

And what this does have to do with the President detaining people because he wants to is because you think it happens to be along the lines of "Because God says so"

The Inquisition thought that God also told them to torture and burn people at the stake for imaginary crimes.

When you start using God as a justification for actions that directly contravene legal rulings, you might as well throw out the constitution and annoint yourself as King of the Holy American Empire.

And where again might I ask you, is the proof that these people are so-called "terrorists"?

Remember that person who was shipped off to another nation when he came to America so that he could be tortured? A person that turned out to be completely innocent?

What about that Indian girl who was born on American shores as a citizen but was deported just because she happened to observe a forum where there was fiery rhetoric being used?

What "terrorists" acts were these people doing? None at all.

All this means is that the administration can and will imprison anyone they like on non-existant charges without having to give them due process. They won't even get a show trial. How much longer before they start imprisoning people because they did not show "politically acceptable views"?

by holding them they preventing terrorist activity. Since we been keeping them at gitmo there has not been another attack on the US.
It's not free for the terrorists.What about keeping the people deemed as innocent there? And while there hasn't been another attack on the US, there have been attacks on Madrid, London, Egypt, etc.

by holding them they preventing terrorist activity. Since we been keeping them at gitmo there has not been another attack on the US.

and how many terrorist attacks on the US were there between 1994 and 2000?

and how many terrorist attacks on the US were there between 1994 and 2000?Atlanta Olympics in 1996. ;)

That wasn't done by Islamist extremists. :rolleyes: Your post is irrelevant.

You're one of those people who can't see the color grey can you?



The Vatican wasn't all that pretty either. The only reason why they aren't all powerful now is because they traded up that power for bare independence back then in the Mussolini days.



More compassionate for the average guy? Only if you happen to be straight, white and ultra-orthodox. You can't pretend those lunatics who go around saying stuff like the 9-11 attacks and the disaster at NO were "Gods will" because "God hates gays/blacks/sinners/jews/etc" don't exist. And there are a fair bit of them as religious leaders.

Where's the compassion in that?



America has it's own Christian extremists who advocate death and destruction of people they don't like i.e. gays, non-Christians, etc. I'm not saying that there aren't just as bad cases in the other camps, but you can't deny that your own camp is all squeeky clean.



But not all. It proves that a religious belief system is NOT needed to form a succesful government.

And what this does have to do with the President detaining people because he wants to is because you think it happens to be along the lines of "Because God says so"

The Inquisition thought that God also told them to torture and burn people at the stake for imaginary crimes.

When you start using God as a justification for actions that directly contravene legal rulings, you might as well throw out the constitution and annoint yourself as King of the Holy American Empire.

And where again might I ask you, is the proof that these people are so-called "terrorists"?

Remember that person who was shipped off to another nation when he came to America so that he could be tortured? A person that turned out to be completely innocent?

What about that Indian girl who was born on American shores as a citizen but was deported just because she happened to observe a forum where there was fiery rhetoric being used?

What "terrorists" acts were these people doing? None at all.

All this means is that the administration can and will imprison anyone they like on non-existant charges without having to give them due process. They won't even get a show trial. How much longer before they start imprisoning people because they did not show "politically acceptable views"?


1. There are situations in which there is no grey.

2. Don't condemn the Vatican of today for what happened in the past. It's under different leadership now. Not to mention they've apologized for the past. And Mussolini gave them their independence. It was Napaleon that took away their temporal power.

3. Again you are bringing in race when the fact is that race has nothing to do with it. If it did the majority of catholics would not be nonwhites. There are plenty of people who twist religion to suit their agendas. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. Catholic doctrine and indeed all christian doctrine teaches that homosexuality is a sin and not allowed in the church. At the same time, doctrine teaches against persecution but rather tolerance. But tolderance does not mean letting them into the church. In fact doctrine says to keep them out or throw them out.

4. I was never saying that. I was countering the statements that all religious leaders were evil.

5. Depends on your definition of successful government.


6. That's a pretty long winded conspiracy theory. The people at Gitmo are recieving the due process that is due them. The actions at Gitmo are in line with all the relevant legal rulings.

What about keeping the people deemed as innocent there? And while there hasn't been another attack on the US, there have been attacks on Madrid, London, Egypt, etc.
those places are not part of the US.

Innocent people might be there but that's because of the bureaucracy or the fact the government is appealling their cases. If the government has a compelling idea that you pose a threat they can keep you.
Remember we are not dealing with simple criminals. This is beyond the legal system. This is war.

and how many terrorist attacks on the US were there between 1994 and 2000?
5
WTC
Atlanta
Oklahoma City
US embassies in East Africa
USS Cole

all of which Pres. Clinton did nothing about. (with the exception that he bombed a baby formula factory in Sudan)

5
WTC
Atlanta
Oklahoma City
US embassies in East Africa
USS Cole

all of which Pres. Clinton did nothing about. (with the exception that he bombed a baby formula factory in Sudan)
How many attacks on the US during Bush's term?
2
WTC 2
Anthrax
Becuase unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't take shit from anyone.

Come to think of it. When the WTC was bombed the first time (clinton was Pres and the Dems had control of Congress), Clinton did absolutely nothing. And the Dems were more concerned for the due process rights of the terrorists than they were for the safety of American citizens.
In fact, Clintons bizarre and failed foreign policy is partially the cause of 911.
If he had attacked Al Qaeda back then, when he should have, 911 most likely would not have happened.

5
WTC
Atlanta
Oklahoma City
US embassies in East Africa
USS Cole

wtc was 1993

atlanta and okc were domestic. if we count domestics, then your previous claim that we haven't been attacked since we started locking people in gitmo is false.

the embassies and cole were overseas. if we count attacks on US forces and citizens overseas, then your previous claim is beyond false - it's just laughable. the number of terrorist attacks on the US overseas has gone up to a ridiculously high level in recent years.

Come to think of it. When the WTC was bombed the first time (clinton was Pres and the Dems had control of Congress), Clinton did absolutely nothing.

seems to me that the people involved are currently in jail after being found guilty in a number of trials on a number of charges. cause, you know, we had this evidence that they were guilty of crimes that was convincing enough to get them convicted.

we didn't even have to rely on the word of dear leader to prove it.

wtc was 1993

atlanta and okc were domestic. if we count domestics, then your previous claim that we haven't been attacked since we started locking people in gitmo is false.

the embassies and cole were overseas. if we count attacks on US forces and citizens overseas, then your previous claim is beyond false - it's just laughable. the number of terrorist attacks on the US overseas has gone up to a ridiculously high level in recent years.
we are talking US territory. An embassy is US territory as is a warship.

If you exclude the domestics:

Clinton:
WTC 1 (don't forget that Clinton was the President in 1993)
Embassies in East Africa
USS Cole


Bush:
WTC 2


Note that under Bush none of our embassies have been attacked nor has any of our warships.

That brings the attacks suffered under Bush down to just 1 where as under Clinton it was at least 3. Again, when WTC was first attacked, Clinton and the Dems did nothing because they were more concerned about the rights of the terrorists than they were about the rights of US citizens to live. Just as the antiBush protestors are today.

who said anything about clinton? not i.

i said between 1994 and 2000. my point being that there have been a ridiculously low number of international terrorist attacks in the united states at all. arguing that there haven't been any since opening up a torture camp in cuba therefore the torture camp has stopped them from happening is the post hoc fallacy combined with an incorrect idea about the rate at which such attacks would occur 'naturally'.

How many attacks on the US during Bush's term?
2
WTC 2
Anthrax
Becuase unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't take shit from anyone.

WTC 2 dwarfs all the others, both in property damage and loss of life. There's no comparison.

And do the daily insurgent attacks on our forces in Iraq not count as attacks against the US?

No, its a common fallacy that an embassy is "territory" of the home country; it isn't. At least there is absolutely nothing in the Vienna Convention (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm) that supports that claim, and the CIA World Factbook doesn't include embassy lands in the territorial description, etc.

I'm not sure about a warship. That would seem to me to be property, not territory.

Not that that matters to this topic.

1. There are situations in which there is no grey.


And what would those be? Look far back and carefully enough and even the blackest or whitest of situations dissolve into grey.


2. Don't condemn the Vatican of today for what happened in the past. It's under different leadership now. Not to mention they've apologized for the past. And Mussolini gave them their independence. It was Napaleon that took away their temporal power.


Just like what Japan did to most of Asia in WWII. Yes, it is under new leadership and yes it has apologized for its actions. But that doesn't mean that what it has done before should be forgotten nor should they not be used as a benchmark for its behavior now and in the future.

If the Vatican begins to slide back to its old ways, there will be those who are watching for the signs. Not judging. But watchfull of its actions.


3. Again you are bringing in race when the fact is that race has nothing to do with it. If it did the majority of catholics would not be nonwhites.

Race issues in any religion are determined by the biases of those who become the regional/district leaders in said religion. If a member of the Ku Klux Klan became a minister, it is unrealistic to expect that he will not bring his prejudices with him. If enough people of similar biases enter a religion as leaders and spokespeople, the religion will be weighted towards their view.

The tenets of a religion are weighed by those who espouse them, not the other way round.


There are plenty of people who twist religion to suit their agendas. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.

Then why the active campaigning against people who do not fit the world view of certain Christians? Not all of them do this, granted, but there are many who do.


Catholic doctrine and indeed all christian doctrine teaches that homosexuality is a sin and not allowed in the church. At the same time, doctrine teaches against persecution but rather tolerance.

Doctrine and action are two different things. Even you should be able to see that.


But tolderance does not mean letting them into the church. In fact doctrine says to keep them out or throw them out.


Church is one thing since that is within the premises where the doctrine can apply. But what of outside the church? Prejudices and bias do not stay within a church.


4. I was never saying that. I was countering the statements that all religious leaders were evil.


I don't think it was implied anywhere that all religious leaders were evil.


5. Depends on your definition of successful government.


One with good civil rights, a successful economy and high education standards?


6. That's a pretty long winded conspiracy theory. The people at Gitmo are recieving the due process that is due them. The actions at Gitmo are in line with all the relevant legal rulings.

Really? Why are there so few trials, if at all, in comparison to the number of people there? After all, not all residents in the prison were apprehended in Afghanistan or Iraq now were they?

Perhaps a relevant link will suffice to allay my suspicions.

And what due process will be afforded to those who are detained by presidential order? Residents in any nation are usually accorded the right to walk unmolested by law enforcement agencies unless they are in clear violation of the law or a suspect in a case being taken in for questioning.

Barring actual evidence of a crime, even those taken in for questioning can only be held for at the very most 24 hours before they are released barring a court order. But with this, there is no court order, no ruling judge. A person can be detained at the president's whim without legal recourse for however long he deems fit.

And most importantly, no need for any crime or evidence thereoff.

Who would not abuse such power? A politician? Ridiculous.

Just out of curiosity, South Pacific..

..how are you sure it's God talking to you and not Satan. He was, after all, even able to tempt Christ, though Christ caught on before following through. Are you so much better than Christ that you would instantly be able to see through such a ploy by the supposed Prince of Lies?

Just out of curiosity, South Pacific..

..how are you sure it's God talking to you and not Satan. He was, after all, even able to tempt Christ, though Christ caught on before following through. Are you so much better than Christ that you would instantly be able to see through such a ploy by the supposed Prince of Lies?

*Takes out popcorn*

This ought to be interesting.

Also South Pacific, just what makes you think God, creator of heaven and earth, almighty and all knowing, would possibly need you to do things for fim and in his name? Do you think God isn't big enough to handle earthly problems himself?

That wasn't done by Islamist extremists. :rolleyes: Your post is irrelevant.What? I fail to see where it was said that Islamic terror was the only terror being asked for.
My post was answering which terrorist attacks occured in that time and I named one. It wasn't islamic terror, which supports Free Soviets' point.

those places are not part of the US.
by holding them they preventing terrorist activity. Since we been keeping them at gitmo there has not been another attack on the US.
It's not free for the terrorists. Pardon me for assuming that you were talking about terrorist activity in the second (earlier) post and not terrorist activity directed against the US. Must be my cosmopolitan bias not to assume that things only apply to the US.
I take it the War on Terror would be better phrased War on Terror directed against the US then.

What? I fail to see where it was said that Islamic terror was the only terror being asked for.
My post was answering which terrorist attacks occured in that time and I named one. It wasn't islamic terror, which supports Free Soviets' point.


I misunderstood your point, then. I apologize.

eh no. it is your personal belief.
The people they burned at the stake were people accused of witchcraft and heresy.

Even back then, there was no Catholic rules against speaking to God. In fact the catholic church has a record of recognizing that some people do recieve messages from God.
Further, they don't burn people at the stake anymore. You cannot claim the church of today is the same as it was back then.
Ever heard of Joan of Arc?

Oh, wait! That probably doesn't count because she was french :rolleyes:

Just out of curiosity, South Pacific..

..how are you sure it's God talking to you and not Satan. He was, after all, even able to tempt Christ, though Christ caught on before following through. Are you so much better than Christ that you would instantly be able to see through such a ploy by the supposed Prince of Lies?
The pure in heart, the virgin, those who do God's will and have the spirit are more than able to divine whether it is God or Satan.

Also South Pacific, just what makes you think God, creator of heaven and earth, almighty and all knowing, would possibly need you to do things for fim and in his name? Do you think God isn't big enough to handle earthly problems himself?
he uses people to carry out his will.

Ever heard of Joan of Arc?

Oh, wait! That probably doesn't count because she was french :rolleyes:
Those were her political enemies who killed her. Not the catholic church.

The pure in heart, the virgin, those who do God's will and have the spirit are more than able to divine whether it is God or Satan.

And you claim to have at least one of these factors? The 2nd maybe. But I doubt that was what you were aiming for. ;)

he uses people to carry out his will.

What a selfish fucker! He never lets me use him to carry out my will.