NationStates Jolt Archive

From an original series Star Trek Episode...

Kirk holds a copy of the U.S. Constitution in yet another parallel Earth story

Kirk: These words were not written just for chiefs, or warriors or hunters.
Gathered crowd of barbarians: gasp!
Kirk: They must apply to all! To Yangs and Comms alike!
Gathered Growd: No.. not Comms!
Kirk: yes Comms! These words apply to EVERYBODY or they mean NOTHING!

From an original series Star Trek Episode...

Kirk holds a copy of the U.S. Constitution in yet another parallel Earth story

Kirk: These words were not written just for chiefs, or warriors or hunters.
Gathered crowd of barbarians: gasp!
Kirk: They must apply to all! To Yangs and Comms alike!
Gathered Growd: No.. not Comms!
Kirk: yes Comms! These words apply to EVERYBODY or they mean NOTHING!

but... the terrorists don't DESERVE any rights! what they do i so evil that they automatically forfeit them! 'Sides they aren't Americans so who cares!?

who needs those dirty Comms anyway... ;)

but... the terrorists don't DESERVE any rights! what they do i so evil that they automatically forfeit them! 'Sides they aren't Americans so who cares!?

who needs those dirty Comms anyway...

Ut, one Andaras-like reactionary person was enough, don't you think?;)

Ut, one Andaras-like reactionary person was enough, don't you think?;)

hey, i can pretend to be like him if i want, more fun that way when use his style of beliefs in a sarcastic manner :)

From an original series Star Trek Episode...

Kirk holds a copy of the U.S. Constitution in yet another parallel Earth story

Kirk: These words were not written just for chiefs, or warriors or hunters.
Gathered crowd of barbarians: gasp!
Kirk: They must apply to all! To Yangs and Comms alike!
Gathered Growd: No.. not Comms!
Kirk: yes Comms! These words apply to EVERYBODY or they mean NOTHING!

Just for that, Bush is sending Kirk and his Comms to Guantanamo. :p

Ut, one Andaras-like reactionary person was enough, don't you think?;)

Nah, everyone knows the Federation is an uber-Socialist society. If he was being reactionary he'd be calling for the rise of the Comms and the overthrow of the bourgeois Yang.

You can see how Captain Kirk would handle terrorism here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM).

Nah, everyone knows the Federation is an uber-Socialist society. If he was being reactionary he'd be calling for the rise of the Comms and the overthrow of the bourgeois Yang.

true, i mean they don't even use money in the Federation, have to mean some kind of sharing of resources, quite anti-capitalist.... un-American.

*shakes head sadly*

true, i mean they don't even use money in the Federation, have to mean some kind of sharing of resources, quite anti-capitalist.... un-American.

*shakes head sadly*

*Adds "Anti-Capitalist" to reasons he doesn't like any Star Trek*

*Adds "Anti-Capitalist" to reasons he doesn't like any Star Trek*
Sounds like you never heard of the Ferengi, or their Rules of Acquisition, then.

Sounds like you never heard of the Ferengi, or their Rules of Acquisition, then.

heh, i forgot about them myself :D



any my gods man! your postcount! its.... WHY? :eek:

Sounds like you never heard of the Ferengi, or their Rules of Acquisition, then.

Nope. I haven't. Care to elaborate?

Nope. I haven't. Care to elaborate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi#Culture

Nope. I haven't. Care to elaborate?

Their entire culture is based around the concept of acquiring wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi#Culture
Their entire culture is based around the concept of acquiring wealth.
It would seem to be making fun of Capitalism...
*Counts "Anti-Capitalist" twice*

It would seem to be making fun of Capitalism...
*Counts "Anti-Capitalist" twice*

If it helps, their women aren't allowed wear clothes.

If it helps, their women aren't allowed wear clothes.

No help at all.

http://www.un.org/children/conflict/keydocuments/english/genevaconvention4.html

Article 47. Mercenaries
A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

A mercenary is any person who:

is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


In other words FUCK those sons of bitchs in Guantanamo Bay, Mercenaries/Terrorists are state-less beings thus can be delt with as seen fit.

Good day.

In other words FUCK those sons of bitchs in Guantanamo Bay, Mercenaries/Terrorists are state-less beings thus can be delt with as seen fit.

Good day.

Yeah, except most of the so-called "Mercenaries" and "Terrorists" are just average lunks picked up off the streets by warlord factions who want to get rid of enemies and make money by turning them in to Uncle Sam.

I'm sure if you were somehow mistaken for an Enemy Combatant or Materiel Supporter of a terrorist group and sent to Guantanamo yourself you'd appreciate them more if they share that "FUCK those sons of bitchs" attitude you have and made that clear to you, hmm?

but... the terrorists don't DESERVE any rights! what they do i so evil that they automatically forfeit them! 'Sides they aren't Americans so who cares!?

who needs those dirty Comms anyway... ;)

Yup. Even the right to have it considered whether they really are terrorists. Suspected terrorists are still terrorists. It says so right in the title.

true, i mean they don't even use money in the Federation, have to mean some kind of sharing of resources, quite anti-capitalist.... un-American.

*shakes head sadly*

Why do you think they put the capital in San Fransisco.

Why do you think they put the capital in San Fransisco.

To be fair Star Trek did also take a pot shot at collectivism, otherwise the Borg would have been welcomed as allies as a whole instead of an alien menace that needed to be stopped.

Oh and let's not forget that during the Cold War era, the Klingons were a symbol of Soviet-style Communist imperialism.

This may shock some,but if they are not American Citzens,nor a allied nation such as the UK or the Aussies ect.. I dont care about these vermin, those they have released,have been cought again on the battlefield.

Let me let you in on something, if there is orange glazed chicken on the menu,and AC,and free medical care being had, things are being well run down in Guantanamo Bay,in fact those ****s have it TOO good, they should be making big rocks into little rocks via hard labour.

I am a old fashioned sort of fella,war must be hard,or dont bother fighting the shit.

http://www.un.org/children/conflict/keydocuments/english/genevaconvention4.html

Article 47. Mercenaries
A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

A mercenary is any person who:

is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


In other words FUCK those sons of bitchs in Guantanamo Bay, Mercenaries/Terrorists are state-less beings thus can be delt with as seen fit.

Good day.

You utterly fail at reading what you copy/paste. Enjoy diving head first onto your own sword, and good day.

This may shock some,but if they are not American Citzens,nor a allied nation such as the UK or the Aussies ect.. I dont care about these vermin, those they have released,have been cought again on the battlefield.

Let me let you in on something, if there is orange glazed chicken on the menu,and AC,and free medical care being had, things are being well run down in Guantanamo Bay,in fact those ****s have it TOO good, they should be making big rocks into little rocks via hard labour.

I am a old fashioned sort of fella,war must be hard,or dont bother fighting the shit.

Again, you're assuming everyone in Guantanamo is automatically guilty of whatever crime they've been conveniently accused of. I guess Innocent Until Proven Guilty doesn't apply to them brownies eh?

Also, anyone who quotes J. Wellington Wimpy in their signature doesn't exactly have the moral high ground to condemn welfare treatment either.

This may shock some,but if they are not American Citzens,nor a allied nation such as the UK or the Aussies ect.. I dont care about these vermin, those they have released,have been cought again on the battlefield.

Let me let you in on something, if there is orange glazed chicken on the menu,and AC,and free medical care being had, things are being well run down in Guantanamo Bay,in fact those ****s have it TOO good, they should be making big rocks into little rocks via hard labour.

I am a old fashioned sort of fella,war must be hard,or dont bother fighting the shit.

So basically, you're not capable of rational thought regarding the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Fair enough.

Why do you think they put the capital in San Fransisco.

/winner

In other words FUCK those sons of bitchs in Guantanamo Bay, Mercenaries/Terrorists are state-less beings thus can be delt with as seen fit.

Good day.

Hear that people? Open season on Blackwater, the mercenary group that the US mostly relies on in Iraq. And they can't complain either.

From an original series Star Trek Episode...

Kirk holds a copy of the U.S. Constitution in yet another parallel Earth story

Kirk: These words were not written just for chiefs, or warriors or hunters.
Gathered crowd of barbarians: gasp!
Kirk: They must apply to all! To Yangs and Comms alike!
Gathered Growd: No.. not Comms!
Kirk: yes Comms! These words apply to EVERYBODY or they mean NOTHING!

The original Star Trek was trash on decent stories, but high on heart and extremely good sentiments, like this.

The concept of Capitalism was kind of ruined when replicators were invented. Since you can just say to a computer apple pie and all of a sudden it appears, that makes competing for wealth a bit silly.

This may shock some,but if they are not American Citzens,nor a allied nation such as the UK or the Aussies ect.. I dont care about these vermin, those they have released,have been cought again on the battlefield.

Let me let you in on something, if there is orange glazed chicken on the menu,and AC,and free medical care being had, things are being well run down in Guantanamo Bay,in fact those ****s have it TOO good, they should be making big rocks into little rocks via hard labour.

I am a old fashioned sort of fella,war must be hard,or dont bother fighting the shit.

perhaps you don't realize that even if they don't fall under a category to be treated as a prisoner of war they are then simply criminals commiting crimes against America who still deserve the same treatment in the criminal justice system as everyone else. not being from this country doesn't mean that we can do whatever the hell we want with them.

douchebag.

perhaps you don't realize that even if they don't fall under a category to be treated as a prisoner of war they are then simply criminals commiting crimes against America who still deserve the same treatment in the criminal justice system as everyone else. not being from this country doesn't mean that we can do whatever the hell we want with them.

douchebag.

It certainly doesn't mean they have Constitutional rights or are protected under the Geneva Convention either. Throw the scum in Gitmo and give them military tribunals. I agree with Justice Scalia when he says that the Constitution isn't meant to govern the world or be the Constitution of the world; it's for Americans. Terrorists are lucky to get what they do after shooting at Americans.

It certainly doesn't mean they have Constitutional rights or are protected under the Geneva Convention either. Throw the scum in Gitmo and give them military tribunals. I agree with Scalia when he says that the Constitution isn't meant to govern the world or be the Constitution of the world; it's for Americans. Terrorists are lucky to get what they do after shooting at Americans.

Again with the assumption that everyone detained at Gitmo has all ready been proven to be a terrorist. Sheesh.

:rolleyes:

Again with the assumption that everyone detained at Gitmo has all ready been proven to be a terrorist. Sheesh.

:rolleyes:

Again with the idea that they're unfairly taken away. Again, military tribunals. I don't advocate picking Arabs off the streets of Baghdad and shipping them off. They get a fair shot, just not in American courts.

This thread needs more Kirk and less Gitmo.

It certainly doesn't mean they have Constitutional rights or are protected under the Geneva Convention either. Throw the scum in Gitmo and give them military tribunals. I agree with Justice Scalia when he says that the Constitution isn't meant to govern the world or be the Constitution of the world; it's for Americans. Terrorists are lucky to get what they do after shooting at Americans.

that is if they ever get even a military tribunal and don't just sit in prison for years without any forum to defend themselves.

oh wait! that's EXACTLY what has happened!

that is if they ever get even a military tribunal and don't just sit in prison for years without any forum to defend themselves.

oh wait! that's EXACTLY what has happened!

Maybe we'd be moving along quicker if liberal activists like in the Supreme Court weren't holding up tribunals of enemy combatants. But hey, at least we can attack Gitmo for holding people without hearings and then hold up the hearings so as to hold onto something to complain about. Kind of like saying the government needs a warrant to search a suspected terrorist but then withholding approval for the warrant.

Maybe we'd be moving along quicker if liberal activists like in the Supreme Court weren't holding up tribunals of enemy combatants. But hey, at least we can attack Gitmo for holding people without hearings and then hold up the hearings so as to hold onto something to complain about. Kind of like saying the government needs a warrant to search a suspected terrorist but then withholding approval for the warrant.

right its the liberals fault. not Bush and his cronies who were the ones who denied the suspected terrorists the right to habeus corpus and all the other little rights we take for granted. i'm sure it was all the liberals who kept saying that those men don't DESERVE any rights for what they are only being accused of (of course they say they are guilty so who needs a trial right?). it was only a recent Supreme Court decision that forced Bush and his lackeys to give trials for the detainees. with Bush & Co. fighting it all the way and attacking the decision to force the government to get off its ass and stop holding people indefinately!

but i'm sure its somehow all the liberals fault.

Maybe we'd be moving along quicker if liberal activists like in the Supreme Court weren't holding up tribunals of enemy combatants.

And your proof of this is...?

It had better damn well not be from talk show hosts or the like.

right its the liberals fault. not Bush and his cronies who were the ones who denied the suspected terrorists the right to habeus corpus and all the other little rights we take for granted. i'm sure it was all the liberals who kept saying that those men don't DESERVE any rights for what they are only being accused of (of course they say they are guilty so who needs a trial right?). it was only a recent Supreme Court decision that forced Bush and his lackeys to give trials for the detainees. with Bush & Co. fighting it all the way and attacking the decision to force the government to get off its ass and stop holding people indefinately!

but i'm sure its somehow all the liberals fault.


Christ, here we go... Habeas Corpus is not a right guaranteed to foreign combatants. No rights protected under the Constitution apply to terrorists at Gitmo. And even the Constitution, if some people actually bothered to READ IT, mentions that the provision of Habeas Corpus can be suspended in times of revolt or rebellion (in fact the only reason that should be an issue is when it comes to which branch decides it). But yeah, if liberals complain about the tactics we use to fight terrorists to stop them from going back to the battlefield to shoot our troops, and then go and make it harder to follow the PC guide to fighting enemies of America, then yeah I'd say they're a bit at fault.

Call up the whambulance to treat your Bush Derangement Syndrome; you sound like an answering machine.

Christ, here we go... Habeas Corpus is not a right guaranteed to foreign combatants. No rights protected under the Constitution apply to terrorists at Gitmo. And even the Constitution, if some people actually bothered to READ IT, mentions that the provision of Habeas Corpus can be suspended in times of revolt or rebellion (in fact the only reason that should be an issue is when it comes to which branch decides it). But yeah, if liberals complain about the tactics we use to fight terrorists to stop them from going back to the battlefield to shoot our troops, and then go and make it harder to follow the PC guide to fighting enemies of America, then yeah I'd say they're a bit at fault.

Call up the whambulance to treat your Bush Derangement Syndrome; you sound like an answering machine.

all i see here is ends justify the means and they sure as hell don't. you get that loaded question "do you want them back there shooting at us again?" and we are supposed to cower and fear and let Bush do whatever he wants to keep us "safe". if they can prove that someone they are holding has committed a crime, try them and prove it. if not, its not liberals fault that they couldn't make a case. you don't hold someone just because you think they "probably did something". i'm sorry but in our lofty society we don't do things like that.

at least we shouldn't. and frankly habeus corpus should never be suspended, in times of crises is the time we should clutch on to our rights even more closely, not dump them to make it more convienient for the government.

all i see here is ends justify the means and they sure as hell don't. you get that loaded question "do you want them back there shooting at us again?" and we are supposed to cower and fear and let Bush do whatever he wants to keep us "safe". if they can prove that someone they are holding has committed a crime, try them and prove it. if not, its not liberals fault that they couldn't make a case. you don't hold someone just because you think they "probably did something". i'm sorry but in our lofty society we don't do things like that.

at least we shouldn't. and frankly habeus corpus should never be suspended, in times of crises is the time we should clutch on to our rights even more closely, not dump them to make it more convienient for the government.

Can you read? Get over Bush. Read the Constitution. I'm not advocated suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus, but pointing out that the only mention of it is in regards to Congress having the power to suspend it during revolt and rebellion. The point was that the Constitution doesn't apply to terrorists. Habeas Corpus is mentioned for Americans held by American bodies so they can be given trials, but it has nothing to do with enemy combatants. So sorry if you're unwilling to take a stand against terrorists and would rather give them access to American courts and the writ of Habeas Corpus, but I'd rather keep these people locked up. Sorry but in our society we value our freedom enough to hold onto it, even if it means locking up the nuts we're fighting. Washington, Lincoln, even FDR wouldn't have had reservations about this. Whine all you want about not being sure they're terrorists. I trust the military to figure out who's shooting them over an activist court any day of the week. This idea that we can whine and complain about the Constitution being violated without actually having to read the damn document is annoying to say the least.

Can you read? Get over Bush. Read the Constitution. I'm not advocated suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus, but pointing out that the only mention of it is in regards to Congress having the power to suspend it during revolt and rebellion. The point was that the Constitution doesn't apply to terrorists. Habeas Corpus is mentioned for Americans held by American bodies so they can be given trials, but it has nothing to do with enemy combatants. So sorry if you're unwilling to take a stand against terrorists and would rather give them access to American courts and the writ of Habeas Corpus, but I'd rather keep these people locked up. Sorry but in our society we value our freedom enough to hold onto it, even if it means locking up the nuts we're fighting. Washington, Lincoln, even FDR wouldn't have had reservations about this. Whine all you want about not being sure they're terrorists. I trust the military to figure out who's shooting them over an activist court any day of the week. This idea that we can whine and complain about the Constitution being violated without actually having to read the damn document is annoying to say the least.

im sorry if my whining that we give everyone the same rights hurts your precious sensibilities that it might "hurt the war on terror". sorry, but i am not going to decide to hold people without giving them the same rights all people should have out of fear. you could make the same kind of argument toward suspected murderers, pedophiles, etc. why not just lock them up too? be safer that way, won't have to worry about them going out and repeating their crime.

civilian courts are all activist? i think you overestimate the liberal bias in our court system...

and i don't care if past presidents wouldn't have an issue with it, its still wrong, if FDR was president today i'd holler at the top of my lungs at the internment of Japanese-Americans, i'd yell at Lincoln for suspending habeus corpus during the Civil War, these things are WRONG and declaring its for the safety of all is just not good enough damn it. i am not willing to give up anyone's rights for an added layer of an illusion of safety. won't do it. rights aren't something to be taken away as soon as things get tough, what is the point if you only enjoy them when everything is going right?

those men are accused of unspeakable crimes but they deserve to be heard in a court (military or not) just like everyone else. and not years after they are captured either. i'm sorry but we have no moral leg to stand on as far as i'm concerned especially given the fact that a good number of detainees have been proven innocent or suspected to be so but held anyway. i really can't understand how anyone can support any of this. it just boggles the mind.

im sorry if my whining that we give everyone the same rights hurts your precious sensibilities that it might "hurt the war on terror". sorry, but i am not going to decide to hold people without giving them the same rights all people should have out of fear. you could make the same kind of argument toward suspected murderers, pedophiles, etc. why not just lock them up too? be safer that way, won't have to worry about them going out and repeating their crime.

This isn't a damn game and you should really know better. We're not talking about some kids that robbed a convenience store. We're talking about a damn state of war where Islamist nutjobs and killing American troops and, let me say it again, are at war with us. Again, murderers and pedophiles are scum, but if they're Americans they have the right to habeas corpus because it's a civilian right, not a foreign one for terrorists to get access to. You really ought to understand this by now. Why not let terrorists from the Philippines vote in American elections too? Obviously that's a right that shouldn't be limited to Americans, right?

civilian courts are all activist? i think you overestimate the liberal bias in our court system...

That's not the point. The point is that you DO NOT GIVE THEM THE CHANCE. What if Bin Laden was caught and brought into an American court, maybe in San Fran, and wasn't found guilty of anything? Assuming he isn't beaten to death by pissed off Americans, then what? The American justice system has nothing to do with foreign combatants or prisoners of war with regards to trials. And no, I'm not overestimating the courts, because five nuts in the Supreme Court just ruled against 230+ years of American history and Constitutional understanding and declared terrorists in Gitmo have a right to our courts, which is nonsense.

and i don't care if past presidents wouldn't have an issue with it, its still wrong, if FDR was president today i'd holler at the top of my lungs at the internment of Japanese-Americans, i'd yell at Lincoln for suspending habeus corpus during the Civil War, these things are WRONG and declaring its for the safety of all is just not good enough damn it. i am not willing to give up anyone's rights for an added layer of an illusion of safety. won't do it. rights aren't something to be taken away as soon as things get tough, what is the point if you only enjoy them when everything is going right?

FDR was wrong, and his actions only show just how lax we've become when it comes to foreign forces trying to destroy us. In the face of the Fascist forces of the Axis, FDR brought us the draft, threw Americans of Japanese decent into concentration camps just for safe measure, provided arms to our allies, and put the military industrial complex back on its knees, and he made us that much safer for doing it. Frankly though, the argument against the concentration camps can be found in something you still aren't looking to, which is our Constitution. Look up equal protection under the law and the 14th Amendment. But also realize that some, not all, but some of those people weren't really American citizens. And Lincoln was wrong for suspending the writ of habeas corpus, not because it shouldn't have been done, but because that's Congress' job under Article One. All your arguments against those men are validated through the Constitution, or would be if you bothered to read the damn thing. That being said though, so is my argument; you don't give enemy combatants trials, especially ones there illegally under international law. You're not giving up a terrorist's right to a trial in American courts because he didn't have that right to begin with.

those men are accused of unspeakable crimes but they deserve to be heard in a court (military or not) just like everyone else. and not years after they are captured either. i'm sorry but we have no moral leg to stand on as far as i'm concerned especially given the fact that a good number of detainees have been proven innocent or suspected to be so but held anyway. i really can't understand how anyone can support any of this. it just boggles the mind.

Sorry, but Americans have the right to a fair and speedy trial, not terrorist thugs we catch in the desert. Reality check: this is war, not some petty crime. When you catch the enemy you don't give him a spongebath, you lock his ass up. These TERRORISTS are treated better at Gitmo than American prisoners. Just ask those detainees enjoying getting fat off nicely cooked meals, living under AC, and getting all the time to pray they could ask for. These monsters are treated better by us than we treat out own, and you think we owe them more. I'll stand by the Constitution and keep reading for the part where terrorists that want to kill us get American trials- until then I'll stand by what I've said. The Constitution applies to America, not the world.

so it really just comes down to "we shouldn't take the chance a guilty terrorist will go free" for you. i'm sorry but in the United States we aren't supposed to think in that manner, we are supposed to prove their guilt and if someone guilty goes free because we were unable to do that... well... its better than the alternatives. everyone should be held to the same standards and given the same rights whoever they are, American or not if we don't want to look anymore hypocritical than we already are.

Christ, here we go... Habeas Corpus is not a right guaranteed to foreign combatants.

Then clearly laws protecting rights are not applicable to Americans in other countries. You're quite willing to say they are combatants without any proof or trial, so neither should Americans be accorded trials or proof of their crimes before being shot for them.


Habeas Corpus is mentioned for Americans held by American bodies so they can be given trials, but it has nothing to do with enemy combatants.

This is a lie, nothing more. The Sixth Amendment says, quite clearly, not citizens, but the accused. So unless you are willing to retract the accusations, and simply go with arbitrary "We lock them up because we want to!", you haven't a leg on.

And I see you have yet to prove a single thing about so called "liberal activist judges", blocking the trials from going ahead. But then again, I doubt you can prove anything really, beyond merely showing that you have bile and rhetoric.

We're talking about a damn state of war where Islamist nutjobs and killing American troops and, let me say it again, are at war with us.

A war, I would point out, America started, by interfering in Middle Eastern affairs over 30 years ago and more, destabilizing governments and propping up dictators such as the Shah of Iran. And let us not forget the Iran-Contra scandal shall we? These people didn't come out of thin air, and America's hands are certainly not lily white as you would like to pretend.


Again, murderers and pedophiles are scum, but if they're Americans they have the right to habeas corpus because it's a civilian right, not a foreign one for terrorists to get access to.

You are a terrorist. You do not have a right to a trial. You do not have a right to legal recourse. You have no rights. You will be held indefinitely at the pleasure of the government of the United States.

See how that works?


You really ought to understand this by now. Why not let terrorists from the Philippines vote in American elections too? Obviously that's a right that shouldn't be limited to Americans, right?

Because they aren't Americans. The voting system quite specifically states citizens. Being born in the Philippines, they don't qualify. This is another ludicrous example that could only come from the mind of a mental midget.


That's not the point. The point is that you DO NOT GIVE THEM THE CHANCE.


Let's execute all people waiting for trial, be they Americans, foreigners, or what have you. You shouldn't give them a chance. In fact, you're probably a terrorist too. You shouldn't get a chance to defend yourself. Please cooperate when the death squads come.

Aren't total disregard for legal protections and trials fun? Especially when you can fling random accusations and have people killed.


These TERRORISTS are treated better at Gitmo than American prisoners. Just ask those detainees enjoying getting fat off nicely cooked meals, living under AC, and getting all the time to pray they could ask for.

You mean those accused people who, after years of being interned, committed suicide? Of course, you don't care about that. They're "terrorists". Who cares if nothing was ever proved? If you say they are terrorist, then they must be terrorists! Why, the other day, 4 month old babies showed up on the no fly lists as terrorists. They should have been shot dead in their mother's arms!

But keeping in mind about that, have you talked to any of these inmates? Clearly you haven't, because that would spoil your petty little views that these are bogeymen to scare you in bed with.

How about 10 day sleep deprivation hmm? An interesting experiment that has shown to reliably break minds quite effectively, leaving nothing behind but gibbering wrecks. Shall we put you through that? After all, you probably don't think it's cruel and unusual torment.


And no, I'm not overestimating the courts, because five nuts in the Supreme Court just ruled against 230+ years of American history and Constitutional understanding and declared terrorists in Gitmo have a right to our courts, which is nonsense.

Prove 230 years of American legal history and Constitutional understanding that accused foreigners held on US soil are not legally guaranteed trials.

I wager that you won't, choosing instead to merely dispense more rhetoric and rants. If you do so, it would quite clearly prove that you are little more than an uneducated and ignorant person more interested in blood lust than in the actual workings of a country or legal system, as well as ignorant of the fact that those very same systems protect your pustular opinions from being turned into rope to hang you with.

I wager that you won't, choosing instead to merely dispense more rhetoric and rants. If you do so, it would quite clearly prove that you are little more than an uneducated and ignorant person more interested in blood lust than in the actual workings of a country or legal system, as well as ignorant of the fact that those very same systems protect your pustular opinions from being turned into rope to hang you with.

I think you need a Tribble or two so you can relax.

You can see how Captain Kirk would handle terrorism here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM).

"Now that's Shatner"

"Now that's Lubmens" (Or however you spell it)

"Now that's Shatner, but if I freeze frame you can clearly see Lubemans coffee cup"

"So because of his rough and tumble attitude Kirk was clearly the superior commander"

"Thank you Neill for that pointless presentation we all know Picard was the better commander"

How is that the worst fight scene ever?

And Captain Kirk was better than Picard.

And...

Large sections of TOS was really Gene Roddenberry's beliefs placed in, I remember one episode where the Enterprise went to a planet which was in a civil war one side was being helped by the federation the other by the Klingon's, this was speaking out about the Vietnam War which was raging at the time.

I don't remember what was really said I have only seen it once and I was about 12 at the time but I do remember it was an analogy on the Vietnam war.

The concept of Capitalism was kind of ruined when replicators were invented. Since you can just say to a computer apple pie and all of a sudden it appears, that makes competing for wealth a bit silly.

That's one thing that always bugged me about Trek... Sometimes they used money, sometimes not. I don't just mean in dealings with people outside the Federation either.

It certainly doesn't mean they have Constitutional rights or are protected under the Geneva Convention either. Throw the scum in Gitmo and give them military tribunals. I agree with Justice Scalia when he says that the Constitution isn't meant to govern the world or be the Constitution of the world; it's for Americans. Terrorists are lucky to get what they do after shooting at Americans.

The ideals of the Constitution apply to EVERYBODY or they mean NOTHING. Think about it. What if we get into the mode of thought that the Constitution isn't for non-citizens. Now let's suppose that a penalty for certain crimes like, oh, 'disloyalty' become punishable by having your citizenship revoked. (Nowhere does it say they can't do it.) Now where are your rights?

Maybe we'd be moving along quicker if liberal activists like in the Supreme Court weren't holding up tribunals of enemy combatants. But hey, at least we can attack Gitmo for holding people without hearings and then hold up the hearings so as to hold onto something to complain about. Kind of like saying the government needs a warrant to search a suspected terrorist but then withholding approval for the warrant.

Bull. The military has had some of these people for almost 8 years. How long does it take to have a tribunal? They're only getting around to it now to have it done before these prisoners can get lawyers.

I think you need a Tribble or two so you can relax.

Tribbles are excellent with a sprinkle of garlic sauce and olive oil.

I think you need a Tribble or two so you can relax.

Actually, I'm quite calm. But this Cobacus's rant, with appropriate keyword replacement, sounds too familiar to Andaras's earlier rants. Also, I'm fairly certain none of the statements, beyond uneducated and ignorant, applied to him, but his rather speccous argument

That's one thing that always bugged me about Trek... Sometimes they used money, sometimes not. I don't just mean in dealings with people outside the Federation either.


Think of Starfleet as the military. You don't use money in the military, you fill a form and they give what you want if they want. That's why you see so few money in Star Trek. It's a show about a military vessel dealing usually with the military back home.

Otherwise, you'll see money. That's how I see it anyways.

Actually, I'm quite calm. But this Cobacus's rant, with appropriate keyword replacement, sounds too familiar to Andaras's earlier rants. Also, I'm fairly certain none of the statements, beyond uneducated and ignorant, applied to him, but his rather speccous argument

come on, it was fun, i haven't actually come across someone who thinks we should hold on to them "just cause!" lately.

so it really just comes down to "we shouldn't take the chance a guilty terrorist will go free" for you. i'm sorry but in the United States we aren't supposed to think in that manner, we are supposed to prove their guilt and if someone guilty goes free because we were unable to do that... well... its better than the alternatives. everyone should be held to the same standards and given the same rights whoever they are, American or not if we don't want to look anymore hypocritical than we already are.

No, it comes down to the law and how best to fight a war. Sorry, but in the US we have a social contract called the Constitution and it doesn't say anything about us having to think in any manner. Again, you're the reason we give military tribunals and not access to American courts. You just said you'd give constitutional rights to terrorists and, if a terrorist goes free, you're ok with it because at least they're not in Gitmo stuffing their faces with gourmet food. Talk about standards- people try to kill Americans and our troops and your reaction is to make us the bad guys and give illegal combatants trials in American courts when they have no legal right to them.

Then clearly laws protecting rights are not applicable to Americans in other countries. You're quite willing to say they are combatants without any proof or trial, so neither should Americans be accorded trials or proof of their crimes before being shot for them.

Maybe you should read the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and various treaties we're subject to under the Supremacy clause, and 22 U.S. Code 1732. It's our job to keep Americans safe no matter where they are. Again, there's no evidence that terrorists that you're so damn sure are innocent have the right to American trials. I'm not resorting to ideological arguments, but legal ones. Even the Geneva Convention doesn't protect terrorists, and the treaties we enter become American law through the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. There's nothing hypocritical about seeing the line between the American people and foreign combatants.

This is a lie, nothing more. The Sixth Amendment says, quite clearly, not citizens, but the accused. So unless you are willing to retract the accusations, and simply go with arbitrary "We lock them up because we want to!", you haven't a leg on.

Here's a little trick- try reading the Constitution in the context it was written. By accused, do you think the Framers meant criminals from Panama, or Americans? You're part of the reason our Supreme Court is screwed up; you don't care about actually interpreting law and reading the Constitution in the context in which it was written, which gets us stupid arguments about whether gun control has to do with state militias and if it violates the 2nd Amendment.

And I see you have yet to prove a single thing about so called "liberal activist judges", blocking the trials from going ahead. But then again, I doubt you can prove anything really, beyond merely showing that you have bile and rhetoric.

Yes, the burden of evidence is on me, isn't it? The evidence is right in the Supreme Court by the names of Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Al Odah v. United States. Thank God for an activist court striking down Military Commissions. And bile and rhetoric is coming from the side that bases arguments on nothing but feelings rather than law and facts.

A war, I would point out, America started, by interfering in Middle Eastern affairs over 30 years ago and more, destabilizing governments and propping up dictators such as the Shah of Iran. And let us not forget the Iran-Contra scandal shall we? These people didn't come out of thin air, and America's hands are certainly not lily white as you would like to pretend.

Ah yes, the typical blowback theory supporter and blame America fellow. Always nice to know what kind of person you're arguing with so you know whether to take them seriously or not. America didn't start the war, mental patient. A bunch of 7th century barbarians did when they killed thousands of our countrymen. Notice the contrast between killing thousands and locking a few terrorists up at Gitmo? Yeah... With your backwards logic France would be justified in invading Germany because more than half a century ago they were occupied by them. I guess China and Korea should attack Japan because of the Pacific War. The Blowback theory is nonsense. America helping Iranians get rid of a socialist like Mossadegh at the start of the Cold War and supporting the Shah to contain Communism has nothing to do with the radicalism we're at war with. Ask the terrorists in the Philippines that we're fighting if they give a damn about the Shah or Operation Ajax. It's not involvement, but the lackthereof that allowed terrorism to get like it has when cowards like Carter and Clinton are too scared to retaliate when Americans are targeted by foreign regimes. Honeslty now, do think the Muslim terrorists in Southeast Asia are killing because America supported the Shah, supports Israel, and kept troops in Saudi Arabia? You think the terrorists in Chechnya care about those things? How about terrorists in Indonesia? Sorry to say it, but America isn't responsible for the global terror network and you'd be a fool to blame 9/11 on blowback rather than 7th century throwbacks that want to create a caliphate.

You are a terrorist. You do not have a right to a trial. You do not have a right to legal recourse. You have no rights. You will be held indefinitely at the pleasure of the government of the United States.

See how that works?

That's fine if I was caught on the battlefield. You're assuming though that the Constitution doesn't protect Americans and their right to habeas corpus. It's a moot point you're trying to make. I'm under the jurisdiction of the United States, and we can play this game of equating terrorists to US citizens until we're blue in the face, but ultimately the law is the law and if you think decisions of war and in the courts should be decided by nonsensical arguments and warped feelings then too bad.

Because they aren't Americans. The voting system quite specifically states citizens. Being born in the Philippines, they don't qualify. This is another ludicrous example that could only come from the mind of a mental midget.

There you go. They're not Americans. They're not under the jurisdiction of the United States and aren't citizens and have no right to civilian courts. You just answered your own question (not really a question but you corrected yourself without knowing it; good job).

Let's execute all people waiting for trial, be they Americans, foreigners, or what have you. You shouldn't give them a chance. In fact, you're probably a terrorist too. You shouldn't get a chance to defend yourself. Please cooperate when the death squads come.

It's got to be fun to live in your own little world where logic is replaced with an antipathy for law and order and sarcasm is the only way to appear smart on the internet, with a dash of hyperbolic rhetoric. Tell me, should the members of Club Gitmo get turkey or chicken tonight?

Aren't total disregard for legal protections and trials fun? Especially when you can fling random accusations and have people killed.

Yeah, especially when you completely make shit up and create laws out of thin air and misinterpret the Constitution and then rant like a nutcase off his meds about the non-existent right of terrorists to American civilian courts.

You mean those accused people who, after years of being interned, committed suicide? Of course, you don't care about that. They're "terrorists". Who cares if nothing was ever proved? If you say they are terrorist, then they must be terrorists! Why, the other day, 4 month old babies showed up on the no fly lists as terrorists. They should have been shot dead in their mother's arms!

Rear Admiral Harry Harris says that the FOUR suicides were not acts of desperation or out of fear, but retaliation against us. If terrorists are willing to blow themselves up and kill themselves to kill our troops and our civilians, what makes you think they wouldn't kill themselves in a detention center to keep information out of our hands? Wake up. These people aren't falsely accused. They know why they're there and you should know too. Cut the hyperbolic crap and stupid insinuations and use your head. There have been at least 36 detainees to be released and that all went back to terrorism and killing Americans. We know through intelligence gathering and reports that many terrorists at Gitmo lie for years and years to get out claiming to have been where they were caught to buy medicine, teach the Koran, and find a wife, all of which have been proven false and show a clear coordination to lie and cover up their tracks and appears to be the result of their training. So they're trained to attack us and then lie for years about false imprisonment to get out of being detained and go back to fighting. But keep calling them innocent because they aren't in American courts; that's going to keep us safe for sure.

But keeping in mind about that, have you talked to any of these inmates? Clearly you haven't, because that would spoil your petty little views that these are bogeymen to scare you in bed with.

Nice to know that there are people out there think that forces that destroyed several planes, American buildings, and the lives of thousands of innocent are just fair tales. The body counts rise every day from The Middle East to Southeast Asia to the Pacific where these terrorists are slaughtering others and they're just a figment of our imaginations. And Stalin was just an excuse to build nukes and kill Asians in proxy wars, right?

How about 10 day sleep deprivation hmm? An interesting experiment that has shown to reliably break minds quite effectively, leaving nothing behind but gibbering wrecks. Shall we put you through that? After all, you probably don't think it's cruel and unusual torment.

And I suppose you'd rather water-board them, right? Oh wait, THAT'S torture too apparently. I guess we should interrogate them by forcing them to watch the Ellen DeGeneres Show, right? I want them broken. I want them unable to resist. I want them to give us information we need to act on. I'm sorry if it hurts their feelings, but if it's a choice between dunking a terrorist in water and not letting him nap after a turkey dinner or letting an American city go up in smoke, I'll choose interrogation. Why is it more moral to put American lives at risk than to make a terrorist uncomfortable to get the information we need? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was interrogated using waterboarding and he's since confessed to masterminding 9/11, the shoe bomber attempt to blow up planes over the Atlantic, the Bali bombing in Indonesia, the original 1993 bombing of the Twin Towers, the millennium attack plot, the Bojinka plot, and the killing of American journalists like Daniel Pearl. But he's a boogieman, right? Thousands of lives already taken and more lives saved thanks to the information we've gotten from scum like him and it's all a dream...

Prove 230 years of American legal history and Constitutional understanding that accused foreigners held on US soil are not legally guaranteed trials.

I wager that you won't, choosing instead to merely dispense more rhetoric and rants. If you do so, it would quite clearly prove that you are little more than an uneducated and ignorant person more interested in blood lust than in the actual workings of a country or legal system, as well as ignorant of the fact that those very same systems protect your pustular opinions from being turned into rope to hang you with.

The 230 years of American legal history refers to the fact that for 230 years it was understood the the Constitution applied to Americans and those within the jurisdiction of America, not foreign nationals. The 16th Amendment applies only to people in America, and the Supreme Court just decided to throw that out the window and bring terrorists into America to use our courts. Washington John Adams dealt with the French during the Quasi-War era similarly. Adams also said that we're supposed to have a government of laws and not just men; the rule of law shouldn't be overlooked because it hurts your feelings. Lincoln tried enemies of the Union in military and before that military tribunals were used in the Mexican-American War. FDR tried 8 Nazi saboteurs and spies in military tribunals and executed six of them. Even he knew they didn't have the right to courts and that's not a luxary you can nor should afford to give your enemies in times of war. But this was a time when most courts weren't full of activists trying to make laws rather than interpret them. It's the job of the Supreme Court to read the Constitution in the context in which it was written, and instead they look for new meanings in it that weren't evident to the men that wrote the damn thing. That's why they're activists- they seek social change my misreading the Constitution and making up law. Now kindly get off your high horse. I don't get joy over having to kill or lock up anyone, terrorist or not. I don't get a jolly over the thought of war either. What needs to be done shall be done and that's that. The people are a higher priority than non-existant legal protection for terrorists.

The ideals of the Constitution apply to EVERYBODY or they mean NOTHING. Think about it. What if we get into the mode of thought that the Constitution isn't for non-citizens. Now let's suppose that a penalty for certain crimes like, oh, 'disloyalty' become punishable by having your citizenship revoked. (Nowhere does it say they can't do it.) Now where are your rights?

Nonsense. Non-bloody-sense. The Constitution was meant to govern America and only America. Are you going to protest Canada for not abiding by the Second Amendment? Honestly, the Constitution is a social contract and applies to Americans and those within US borders, not to Australians, not to North Koreans, not to Russians, and not to terrorists that march under no flag with no uniform on foreign soil to kill American troops. It's not the job of the Constitution nor has it ever been the job of the Constitution to govern the world. This is the same kind of warped mentality we see in liberal activists on the bench that think it's their job to import foreign law rather than follow the damn Constitution. My rights are protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights; Bin Laden doesn't get to share the rights protected by the Constitution if he isn't an American and also happens to be waging a war against us.

No, it comes down to the law and how best to fight a war. Sorry, but in the US we have a social contract called the Constitution and it doesn't say anything about us having to think in any manner. Again, you're the reason we give military tribunals and not access to American courts. You just said you'd give constitutional rights to terrorists and, if a terrorist goes free, you're ok with it because at least they're not in Gitmo stuffing their faces with gourmet food. Talk about standards- people try to kill Americans and our troops and your reaction is to make us the bad guys and give illegal combatants trials in American courts when they have no legal right to them.

no i'd be fine with a suspected terrorist going free if it could not be proven that he was guilty of anything because that is what you do in a free society. i don't have any feeling to the accused personally and if there is a strong suspicion of guilt i'd be pretty angry as well. But there are larger issues at stake like our claim to the moral highground and keeping people locked up even when you can't prove they did anything wrong is something that i find immoral and goes against the ideals that our country was founded on.

and i have seen good cases made for military tribunals but that still means they should still have the same basic rights as we are the country who talks about freedoms and because we do those rights should be given to all, not just those who we think deserve them. right to lawyer, call witnesses in own defense, speedy trial, all those lovely things you can still give in a military courtroom. not doing so just makes the whole process a sham and i find it beneath us to give showtrials instead of showing the world that we mean what we say when we fling around those phrases like "equal rights".

Nonsense. Non-bloody-sense. The Constitution was meant to govern America and only America. Are you going to protest Canada for not abiding by the Second Amendment? Honestly, the Constitution is a social contract and applies to Americans and those within US borders, not to Australians, not to North Koreans, not to Russians, and not to terrorists that march under no flag with no uniform on foreign soil to kill American troops. It's not the job of the Constitution nor has it ever been the job of the Constitution to govern the world. This is the same kind of warped mentality we see in liberal activists on the bench that think it's their job to import foreign law rather than follow the damn Constitution. My rights are protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights; Bin Laden doesn't get to share the rights protected by the Constitution if he isn't an American and also happens to be waging a war against us.

Don't overextend the point. When we way everyone is protected by the Constitution it has nothing to do with the Articles describing the bicameral legislature or Executive powers. We're talking about the Bill of Rights. What inspired those rights? The idea that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

Not "all citizens" or "All people who love America." (And yes, these days by 'men' we mean people of both sexes.)

Either every single human being has those rights or none of us do. If other people's Governments fail to recognize that then it may not be our job to go make it happen, but it IS our duty to see that while they're here, they have them.

Your point seems to be predicated on the silly notion that the land upon which I happened to draw my first breath determines what rights I, as a human being, posses.

Maybe you should read the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and various treaties we're subject to under the Supremacy clause, and 22 U.S. Code 1732.

I think you haven't read the Constitution at all. This is more likely, given your abysmal lack of evidence to back up your points and outright lies.

The constitution mentions people, not citizens, in its wording regarding a right to a trial, as well as the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.


It's our job to keep Americans safe no matter where they are.


It doesn't matter. Either laws are meant to protect people in places where laws are in effect, or they are limited only to citizenry, and all Americans outside of America can now be gunned down in the street without consequence. Take your pick.


Again, there's no evidence that terrorists that you're so damn sure are innocent have the right to American trials.


But you're so damn sure that the accused are guilty, even without a trial to determine their supposed guilt. And if they have no right to trials and are guilty because others say so, why, we can do away with trials for Americans too!


I'm not resorting to ideological arguments, but legal ones.


Your so called "legal" arguments don't even have any legal backing at all. So I am forced to conclude that you are arguing on ideological grounds while trying to spoof it as "legal", much like the way creationists argue that Intelligent Design is a "science".


Even the Geneva Convention doesn't protect terrorists, and the treaties we enter become American law through the Supremacy clause in the Constitution.

The Geneva convention provides protection to two types of people. Soldiers, and civilians. Either these supposed "terrorists" are civilians charged with committing crimes, and as such are entitled to a trial, or are soldiers and as such are bound by the laws regarding prisoners of war.

If one can create a brand new classification merely to justify getting out of conventions, then let's start one for Americans too. Let's call them "bipedal organic sentients" and not humans. As such, no Americans are to be given any human rights, ever.

Why shouldn't we be able to do that then hmm? America is after all, not universally loved, and her government has done much damage to the world in its power plays.


There's nothing hypocritical about seeing the line between the American people and foreign combatants.

There's plenty of hypocrisy about saying that they aren't people, and suddenly not subject to human rights agreements, and then demanding that Americans are allowed that right.


Here's a little trick- try reading the Constitution in the context it was written.


British prisoners of war during the conflicts between America and Britain, after America was a nation I add, were treated in accordance to the constitutional guarantees regarding people. And this was before the Geneva convention, I might add.


By accused, do you think the Framers meant criminals from Panama, or Americans?

They meant people. This narrowly avoids the sticky issue that was slavery then because they did not view the inhabitants of the African continent as humans.

But I suppose you don't view these people you're so willing to murder because they might be a criminal as humans either.


You're part of the reason our Supreme Court is screwed up; you don't care about actually interpreting law and reading the Constitution in the context in which it was written, which gets us stupid arguments about whether gun control has to do with state militias and if it violates the 2nd Amendment.


Given your arduous support for denial of trials and the like for people held by the US government who are held, without charge I might add, for years on end, and even barely manage to keep in check your demand for blood, the charge of one who doesn't really care about interpreting the law doesn't quite really apply to me.

Why don't you show some of the constitutional and legal language that specifically says people aren't protected, and only citizenry?


Yes, the burden of evidence is on me, isn't it? The evidence is right in the Supreme Court by the names of Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Al Odah v. United States. Thank God for an activist court striking down Military Commissions. And bile and rhetoric is coming from the side that bases arguments on nothing but feelings rather than law and facts.


You are a murdering, pedophile rapist. The evidence is because I say so. See how much fun that is?

Laws and facts, yes, facts, the most important part. Like establishing guilt of the accused. But oh no, we can't have that, you demand that these people be hanged high, without proof, without trial, and without any evidence linking them to a single crime beyond utterances from you of "I say so!"

Arguments based on feelings? Avoided looking in the mirror lately, haven't we?


Ah yes, the typical blowback theory supporter and blame America fellow. Always nice to know what kind of person you're arguing with so you know whether to take them seriously or not. America didn't start the war, mental patient.

Ahh, the argument of the ignorant, who drink deeply from the cup of ultra-nationalism in order to ignore history.

Tell me. Who supplied weapons and funding to the Mujaheedin (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html) of the 1970s(read full article before saying anything, if not, I'll know you don't care about facts)? Who propped up the Shah of Iran when his regime began a bloody suppression of any dissenters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Criticism)? Who has been quite firmly tied to the Saudi royal family of Saudi Arabia for the last 40 or so years? Who supported the Baath party, allowing it to become the apparatus of iron fisted dictatorship that it was in Iraq?

America. That is who.

America does not have lily white hands in the world of foreign affairs.

If you think I am putting the blame squarely on America for all the ills of the world, then I can only suppose you have some sort of persecution complex. I am not. But America is hardly blameless in the matter.


A bunch of 7th century barbarians did when they killed thousands of our countrymen. Notice the contrast between killing thousands and locking a few terrorists up at Gitmo? Yeah... With your backwards logic France would be justified in invading Germany because more than half a century ago they were occupied by them. I guess China and Korea should attack Japan because of the Pacific War. The Blowback theory is nonsense.

The blowback theory simply shows who's hands were involved in the mess, much like forensics of a crime scene determines what happened, and possibly why. But I suppose people like you scream bloody murder when struck back by a child you have been abusing and raping for the last few years.

Hardly surprising.

And I also point you to the contrast of mmm, about 3,000 American civilian lives lost for several hundred thousand Afghani and Iraqi lives lost thanks to American blundering and outright murder, which I might add, goes unpunished.


That's fine if I was caught on the battlefield.

You were caught in the battlefield of the world. We do not need to prove that you were anywhere near any actual fighting. That would only come out in a court case, but clearly, we don't need court cases for the likes of you. You are guilty because we say so, and we can do anything we like to you, including killing you, if we so please.

Isn't that fun?


You're assuming though that the Constitution doesn't protect Americans and their right to habeas corpus.

The Constitution doesn't protect people, as you've argued time and time again. Thereby, no other country's constitution would protect Americans caught outside of America, and they have no more rights than tapeworms.


It's a moot point you're trying to make. I'm under the jurisdiction of the United States, and we can play this game of equating terrorists to US citizens until we're blue in the face, but ultimately the law is the law and if you think decisions of war and in the courts should be decided by nonsensical arguments and warped feelings then too bad.

You've not displayed a single shred of evidence to prove that your argument is anything more than hot air and blood lust. I have provided the wording of the constitution, to the letter, but you are simply throwing it away with more unsupported rants.


There you go. They're not Americans. They're not under the jurisdiction of the United States and aren't citizens and have no right to civilian courts. You just answered your own question (not really a question but you corrected yourself without knowing it; good job).

So you are arguing that any American outside of America now has no rights given to the citizenry of their host country then? Oh, that is most pleasant news. I shall begin an unmitigated butchery of Americans abroad the moment I can affirm this. They do not have rights after all.


It's got to be fun to live in your own little world where logic is replaced with an antipathy for law and order

How curious that you argue that I do not live in a world of law and order, when you are clearly arguing that law and order be thrown out in exchange for arbitrary declarations of guilt and punishment more akin to the likes of the Soviet Union than any establishment committed to actual law and order.


Yeah, especially when you completely make shit up and create laws out of thin air and misinterpret the Constitution and then rant like a nutcase off his meds about the non-existent right of terrorists to American civilian courts.


So the constitution is made up of thin air now? Most curious.


Rear Admiral Harry Harris says that the FOUR suicides were not acts of desperation or out of fear, but retaliation against us.


Who later retracted the statement. But of course, you can't believe it to be anything but that. It would tarnish your pretty little views that America is some sort of paragon of virtue.


These people aren't falsely accused.


CIA bounties given out on the strength of Afghani warlords words and evidence of refugee kidnapping for bounty exchanges says otherwise.

The rest of your argument is merely more of the same recycled rhetoric, ultra-nationalistic rants that would be much like those of Andaras who argued that Stalin was a saint and all those 20 million people he had killed were deserving of the fate.

I have told you to prove your arguments, especially in regards to the parts of the constitution or at least legal background that would support your idea that human rights are not granted to non-citizens, but you have yet to do so even once, merely relying on unsupported ultra-nationalist rants so devoid of facts, they can only be considered to be recycled propaganda of as much factual value as American Idol. You have not one iota of credibility or evidence to back your statements.

As such, I am forced to conclude that you are an ignorant, and most likely historically uneducated... person, who believes that emotionalist ranting will make up for one's lack of facts and knowledge.

Good day, Cobacus, I am done with you, and your factually devoid rants. May the following years and events provide you with much blood pressure and impotent rage. I believe they will.

Talk about standards- people try to kill Americans and our troops and your reaction is to make us the bad guys and give illegal combatants trials in American courts when they have no legal right to them..

The majority of them aren't even suspected of trying to kill "Americans" or your troops.


Here's a little trick- try reading the Constitution in the context it was written.
..

In the context of it being written by white protestant wealthy slave owners?


side that bases arguments on nothing but feelings rather than law and facts.
..

I refer you to your statement re "people try to kill Americans and our troops".


America didn't start the war, mental patient. A bunch of 7th century barbarians did when they killed thousands of our countrymen.
..

..."barbarians" with Western University education, a few of them.


Notice the contrast between killing thousands and locking a few terrorists up at Gitmo? ..

Well, Iraq......


. America helping Iranians get rid of a socialist like Mossadegh at the start of the Cold War and supporting the Shah to contain Communism has nothing to do with the radicalism we're at war with...

No, you helped the British get rid of Mossadergh, (who they wanted out because he wanted to renegotiate the sharing of oil profits and had tired of their evasions), and charged the Shah the bulk of Irans oil revenue for a 25 year period. He then tortured, killed and fucked over all who oppossed him, regardless of whether or not they were communist.


Ask the terrorists in the Philippines that we're fighting if they give a damn about the Shah or Operation Ajax. ...

No, they'd be more concerned with what happened back in the early 1900's....The Moros have been fighting for some sort of independence for about 400-500 years, as far as I remember.


It's not involvement, (.....)ate....

The Chechens aren't attacking America, last I knew. Whats your point?


And I suppose you'd rather water-board them, right? Oh wait, THAT'S torture too apparently. ....

Well, US courts have been ruling so since the Spanish American war.


. Adams also said that we're supposed to have a government of laws and not just men; the rule of law shouldn't be overlooked because it hurts your feelings.....

You should take your own advice there, really.