NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_treatment

American Citizens held in the United States. I dare even the hardiest conservative to justify this.

I justify it.


Hey, don't give me that look, you dared me. It's not my fault that internet anonymity gives me the ability to shout my unsupported support for an obviously illegal, amoral, and ineffectual government tactic, it's society.

I justify it.


Hey, don't give me that look, you dared me. It's not my fault that internet anonymity gives me the ability to shout my unsupported support for an obviously illegal, amoral, and ineffectual government tactic, it's society.

You may be anonymous to the internet, but I'm a clown. We know you live. :)

Good luck with that, I don't even know where I live (Or where I'm from, for that matter. Seriously, I've been confused for being Japanese, South African, and Kentuckian. Kentuckian. WTF? I'm from Jersey, bitch, not Kentucky)

You know, I'm not really surprised.






Damn.

Good luck with that, I don't even know where I live (Or where I'm from, for that matter. Seriously, I've been confused for being Japanese, South African, and Kentuckian. Kentuckian. WTF? I'm from Jersey, bitch, not Kentucky)

You're from New Jersey?

Nevermind then. God beat me to it. :(

Constitution is the class of Starfleet vessel that the Enterprise belonged to.

Jesus Christ. I'm speechless. I am well and truly terrified of my country.

Toilet paper... that's all it is.

You're from New Jersey?

Nevermind then. God beat me to it. :(

Oy, you might want to reconsider that last statement. Think slowly and carefully. Think realy slowly. No, even more slowly, 'cause I got the best damn state in the union behind me, and we all got nothing to lose (Come on, we live in Jersey, you think anything out there scares us?)

Oy, you might want to reconsider that last statement. Think slowly and carefully. Think realy slowly. No, even more slowly, 'cause I got the best damn state in the union behind me, and we all got nothing to lose (Come on, we live in Jersey, you think anything out there scares us?)

If New Jersey is so great, why does the Statue of Liberty face the other way? ;)

He's um...well he's got a point there LG

If New Jersey is so great, why does the Statue of Liberty face the other way? ;)

You know, believe it or not my first response to this question was actually too much. Honestly, even for this forum it was too much. Think about that for a moment.

I will, instead, fall back on my all-purpose contingency plan: A wizard did it.

You know what we need? We need something in the Constitution that says the government can't deny due process to U.S. citizens. I think that would be a lot of help here.

Come on, we live in Jersey, you think anything out there scares us?

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/adultswim/images/thumb/5/52/RABBOT_SSHOT.PNG/120px-RABBOT_SSHOT.PNG

You know, believe it or not my first response to this question was actually too much. Honestly, even for this forum it was too much. Think about that for a moment.

I will, instead, fall back on my all-purpose contingency plan: A wizard did it.

Those damn wizard bastards! :mad:

You know what we need? We need something in the Constitution that says the government can't deny due process to U.S. citizens. I think that would be a lot of help here.

Now why didn't the Framers think of that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_treatment

American Citizens held in the United States. I dare even the hardiest conservative to justify this.

You'll find them, oh yes you will. They'll claim that the government can arrest whoever they want, whenever they want, all in the name of the great god "national security", that it's to keep them safe, and that they'll throw even their families and loved ones to the wolves, just "to be safe".

Now why didn't the Framers think of that?

The Judeo-Communist-Anarchist-LGBT-Islamofacist conspiracy. Duh

You'll find them, oh yes you will. They'll claim that the government can arrest whoever they want, whenever they want, all in the name of the great god "national security", that it's to keep them safe, and that they'll throw even their families and loved ones to the wolves, just "to be safe".

I hope that thought comforts them when their turn comes. :)

Jesus Christ. I'm speechless. I am well and truly terrified of my country.

Like the lapel button I used to have stated, I love my country it's my GOVERNMENT I'm afraid of.

Leaving statues and wizards out of it, the clearest argument against this is its simple ineffectuality; morality and legality aside, this just doesn't work, and you'd think everybody so obsessed with "safety" would actually want to be safe. What boggles me the most isn't peoples willingness to throw others to the lions (We've been doing that to one another since we first figured out we were tasty to lions) it's that they're willing to throw each other to the lions when it won't stop the lion. Then it's not even self-preservation, it's just dumb.

Of course, if I actually thought rational arguments could convince people, I'd still talk to the Willard Preacher.

The constitution is the last fall before comunism once thats been contained permanently by the patriot act...Police State here I am, its time for the RFI in my forehead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_treatment

American Citizens held in the United States. I dare even the hardiest conservative to justify this.

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

Not that it's any less an evil action when within the US and with its own citizens. But I'm sure there will be people here who - for the sake of persecution, torture and power, not any of it theirs to get - argue otherwise.

The constitution is the last fall before comunism once thats been contained permanently by the patriot act...Police State here I am, its time for the RFI in my forehead.

Um.... want a muffin? *hands you a muffin*

I hope that thought comforts them when their turn comes. :)

I hope it doesn't. Those who seek to grant the government power to torture deserve no comfort. They only deserve pain.

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

Not that it's any less an evil action when within the US and with its own citizens. But I'm sure there will be people here who - for the sake of persecution, torture and power, not any of it theirs to get - argue otherwise.

I agree completely, but they have already made the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to those in Gitmo because they aren't US citizens so I just thought I'd emphasize that they ARE(well, two are, the other is a legal resident. If that isn't close enough, then I'd like someone to tell me so I can start bashing legal immigrants in the head with a rock as they have no rights. ;) ). More importantly that the government doesn't give a crap where you're from, or what the laws are because they think they are above such petty concerns as their own mandate.

I hope that thought comforts them when their turn comes. :)

You see, that's the bitter irony of it all. The strongest supporters of such mentalities are usually the ones carrying it out in reality. They'll put on their red and black armbands, loudly decry their neighbors while feeling good about it as they goose step their latest victims to the camps, never to be seen again.

Oh, don't worry, their time will come. Sooner or later, they'll turn on one another, or be turned on by those they themselves turned on, and then they'll be off to the camps as well. Just like the damn Je---uh...I mean....wizard!

Jezus H. Christ on a crutch....

Don't Bush and his cronies understand that there's pretty much no better way to piss someone of so much hes willing to bomb innocents than by holding him incomunicado for couple of years....

Now why didn't the Framers think of that?

Because they were just the one's who made the frame, the men who wrote it should of thought about it though.

The problem is that the rules for war are written during times of peace. We all go through some big, ugly war and then everyone's like 'man, that shouldn't happen again, let's write some rule whereby captured soldiers require 3 meals a day, access to a lawyer and a safe trip home once processed, along with some other hippie-liberal-ruining-our-country-commie stuff'.

Then something actually happens, like a war, and so now a country is hampered by having to mollycoddle captured soldiers.

Solution?

Rename them as enemy combatants.

Sorted.

Now why didn't the Framers think of that?

I thought they did.

Article 1, Section 9:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

There is also the 5th & 14th Amendments, which I will shorten some ...

5th Amendment:
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

14th Amendment:
"No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

That should be plenty proof that you can't deny anyone due process of law. The Bush Administrations claims are nothing more than a farce and are certainly not winning the right people over. Criminals like this never answer for their crimes anymore, and it's a damn shame.

Why does the US government hate freedom so?

I thought they did.

Speaking for myself, it was a joke. And speaking for Lunatic Goofballs (if he doesn't mind), I'm pretty sure he recognizes a joke when he sees one. :)

You're right, though. This couldn't be more obviously unconstitutional, which means my head is going to hurt all the more when someone (inevitably) shows up to defend it.

Oh, don't worry, their time will come. Sooner or later, they'll turn on one another, or be turned on by those they themselves turned on, and then they'll be off to the camps as well. Just like the damn Je---uh...I mean....wizard!

Traditionally, wizards are seen either as benevolent figures who are often taken advantage of and left sweeping up after the protagonist without thanks or are seen as evil characters to be deposed off, usually with their hubris being the primary cause.

That being said, their time may come, but it will only be by a new generation of wolves who will be exactly like the old ones, only more desperate and cunning.

Oy, you might want to reconsider that last statement. Think slowly and carefully. Think realy slowly. No, even more slowly, 'cause I got the best damn state in the union behind me, and we all got nothing to lose (Come on, we live in Jersey, you think anything out there scares us?)

Well yes you do if you're facing west. You've got New York behind you.

Nobody is happy about being from Jersey. That's why the Jets and the Giants claim to be New York teams even though both their stadiums (stadia?) are in New Jersey. Even New Jersians don't want to be from New Jersey. New Jersey has a town called West New York. That's how much you don't want to be from New Jersey. :D

I thought they did.

Article 1, Section 9:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
the argument is that terrorism constitutes an invasion.
There is also the 5th & 14th Amendments, which I will shorten some ...

5th Amendment:
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."
Your leaving out
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
They were by and large caught by the military correct ? And this is a time of public danger if not out right war.

14th Amendment:
"No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."
The 14th was about requiring the states to uphold the 5th amendment
And your leaving out that it specifically refers to jurisdictions with in states or citizens. People in Gitmo are not with in any state that I am aware of, and to my knowledge are not citizens of the US.


That should be plenty proof that you can't deny anyone due process of law. The Bush Administrations claims are nothing more than a farce and are certainly not winning the right people over. Criminals like this never answer for their crimes anymore, and it's a damn shame.

Plenty of proof provided you don't read the rest of the amendment. Then it becomes arguable. Sort of like trying to understand Christianity off of one sentence from the bible.

the argument is that terrorism constitutes an invasion.

Article I, section 9:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

So the existential threat of terrorism constitutes and "Invasion" in which the Writ of Habeas Corpus threatens the public Saftey?

Who is actually making this argument and why do they hate freedom & justice?


There is also the 5th & 14th Amendments, which I will shorten some ...
Your leaving out except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
They were by and large caught by the military correct ? And this is a time of public danger if not out right war.

Nice try. The clauses you refer to modify the section requiring a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. The Due Process clause is not so limited.

5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 14th was about requiring the states to uphold the 5th amendment
And your leaving out that it specifically refers to jurisdictions with in states or citizens. People in Gitmo are not with in any state that I am aware of, and to my knowledge are not citizens of the US.

Although you are right that the 14th is a limit on states, you are otherwise again in error. The Due Process Clause of the 14th applies to "any person."

14th Amendment, section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Moreover, if you had read the OP article you would know we are talking about "how two American citizens and a legal U.S. resident were treated in military jails inside the United States."


Plenty of proof provided you don't read the rest of the amendment. Then it becomes arguable. Sort of like trying to understand Christianity off of one sentence from the bible.

No. If you actually read and comprehend the Constitution, it is not even arguable. Hell, its too pathetic to even be laughable.

Oy, you might want to reconsider that last statement. Think slowly and carefully. Think realy slowly. No, even more slowly, 'cause I got the best damn state in the union behind me, and we all got nothing to lose (Come on, we live in Jersey, you think anything out there scares us?)

Two words: pine barrens. :eek::eek::eek:

Why does the US government hate freedom so?They're Francophobes, and due to the freedom fries issue, it makes them Freedomphobes as well.

the argument is that terrorism constitutes an invasion.

The argument is flawed. Invasion is the entrance of a territory by a military force with the intent of conquering it.

"Terrorism is the entrance of a territory by a military force with the intent of conquering it". Does that make sense? No? Well then I guess terrorism doesn't count as an invasion, as much as some people might want to pretend it does.

Why does the US government hate freedom so?

They don't. They LOVE freedum. They love it so much they want to take it off everyone else so they can have it all for themselves ;)

If New Jersey is so great, why does the Statue of Liberty face the other way? ;)

so NJ can see her ass? Lady Liberty is teh hawt.

so NJ can see her ass? Lady Liberty is teh hawt.

I wonder if she's naked under that toga thing.......

I blame it all on the sheep.

Those cowards in the congress (which is the opposite of progress) that passed the patriot act without giving a damn about the constitution...

But the sheep are the voters that are so ignorant as to what that meant. They only care about what the politicians promise us every election time. It makes no difference if it was a Republican or a Democrat, the patriot act was passed with an overwhelming majority of both houses.

We gave up our freedoms and guarantees under the constitution when we let those traitors pass that bill. We should have raised all sort of hell over that, but...

I thought they did.

Article 1, Section 9:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

There is also the 5th & 14th Amendments, which I will shorten some ...

5th Amendment:
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

14th Amendment:
"No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

That should be plenty proof that you can't deny anyone due process of law. The Bush Administrations claims are nothing more than a farce and are certainly not winning the right people over. Criminals like this never answer for their crimes anymore, and it's a damn shame.

And this man was part of a rebellion, was he not? He was a citizen who decided to join a group that wanted to overthrow the government and cause terror in the hearts of people. He should be executed immediately.

And this man was part of a rebellion, was he not? He was a citizen who decided to join a group that wanted to overthrow the government and cause terror in the hearts of people. He should be executed immediately.I'd like to see some of the evidence you're basing the claim on that he wanted to overthrow the government.

And this man was part of a rebellion, was he not? He was a citizen who decided to join a group that wanted to overthrow the government and cause terror in the hearts of people. He should be executed immediately.

Prove it.

Those cowards in the congress (which is the opposite of progress)
Regress is the opposite of progress.
I'd like to see some of the evidence you're basing the claim on that he wanted to overthrow the government.

Please don't feed the troll, he'll just keep coming back if you do

Prove it.

Its in the link?:confused:

Why was he detained in the first place? That is all the proof you need.

And this man was part of a rebellion, was he not? He was a citizen who decided to join a group that wanted to overthrow the government and cause terror in the hearts of people. He should be executed immediately.

Too bad he would still get a trial...

... and cause terror in the hearts of people. He should be executed immediately.

That's it. Based on your sound legal interpretation, it's clear something must be done.

Execute Alfred Hitchcock and Stephen King immediately!

Please don't feed the troll, he'll just keep coming back if you do
"Gimme proof" is a perfectly acceptable response. It kills the fun for trolls and forces the convinced to compare their truthiness with reality.

You may be anonymous to the internet, but I'm a clown. We know you live. :)

You don't need to be a clown to know (s)he lives :p.

Its in the link?:confused:

Why was he detained in the first place? That is all the proof you need.

Well then, you're a terrorist. The CIA will be along shortly to put a bullet in your head. Have a nice day. :)

You don't need to be a clown to know (s)he lives :p.

:eek: AIEEE! The Word Thief stole my "where"! :eek:

Regress is the opposite of progress.


Please don't feed the troll, he'll just keep coming back if you do

I am a troll because I have the opinion that an American terrorist needs to be executed for his treasonous rebellion?

You know the problem with your leftists? You all complain so much about this stuff, yet you guys never do anything about it. And then you complain that these types of things continue to happen. At least the gov't is doing something, while you are sitting around bitching about life. Arm chair activism is worthless.

That's it. Based on your sound legal interpretation, it's clear something must be done.

Execute Alfred Hitchcock and Stephen King immediately!

Because they were either caught with enemy combatants or had known ties to terrorists? Riiight.

Nice leaps everyone. If only mario could make such a leap like that....

That's it. Based on your sound legal interpretation, it's clear something must be done.

Execute Alfred Hitchcock and Stephen King immediately!

I've seen Colovian Highlands naked. It's horrifying! :eek:

I've seen Colovian Highlands naked.

You probably have, actually. He's a troll puppet of a well-known poster, and he's been warned about creating troll puppets before. This time too.

I am a troll because I have the opinion that an American terrorist needs to be executed for his treasonous rebellion?Nah, it's because you spout nonsense, some of it copy paste. It raises questions as to whether you really believe what you're typing.
You know the problem with your leftists? Nothing. I don't own any leftists =D
You all complain so much about this stuff, yet you guys never do anything about it. Proove it.
And then you complain that these types of things continue to happen. Quotes please.
At least the gov't is doing something, while you are sitting around bitching about life. Arm chair activism is worthless.I always have to laugh about accusations of arm chair activism being posted on a forum =)

:eek: AIEEE! The Word Thief stole my ""! :eek:

:eek:

Back to topic: Sigh, the abuses of power the current U.S.A government/mostly head-of state has committed...

You probably have, actually. He's a troll puppet of a well-known poster, and he's been warned about creating troll puppets before. This time too.

Ooh! Busted! Send him to Gitmo!!

"Gimme proof" is a perfectly acceptable response. It kills the fun for trolls and forces the convinced to compare their truthiness with reality.

I wouldn't have thought so. Chances are he'll just go on about how its obvious this guy is the incarnation of satan or something and needs to be killed now. We'll see, I guess.



Puppet too, eh? Fun.

You probably have, actually. He's a troll puppet of a well-known poster, and he's been warned about creating troll puppets before. This time too.

So I sign into an alternative account to give an alternative view (kind of like a devil's advocate) and I am trolling?

So I sign into an alternative account to give an alternative view (kind of like a devil's advocate) and I am trolling?

That depends, whos puppet are you?

That depends, whos puppet are you?

Definitely not mine


Honestly not hard to find out, considering the nation is in a region called Zilamia....

So I sign into an alternative account to give an alternative view (kind of like a devil's advocate) and I am trolling?

No, you sign in to an alternate account to post copypasta and troll, and you're trolling. All you appear to want to do is stir up shit. It's the definition of trolling, which you should be aware of after 3 or more years on these forums.

I always have to laugh about accusations of arm chair activism being posted on a forum =)

Think about this: All the people in the U.S.A government making these decisions are also thinking and signing/voting/ordering these from their chairs in an attempt to push their policies forward.

The U.S.A government/administration are armchair activists!

So I sign into an alternative account to give an alternative view (kind of like a devil's advocate) and I am trolling?

If you can't generate a legitimate argument, yes. The fact that you aren't suggests that you're doing so not to forward the debate, but to generate responses to you. Attempting to generate responses to you for the sake of responses by posting potentially inflammatory material is called 'trolling'. It's a form of terrorism and you'll have to be detained now.

No, you sign in to an alternate account to post copypasta and troll, and you're trolling. All you appear to want to do is stir up shit. It's the definition of trolling, which you should be aware of after 3 or more years on these forums.

Okay, that was trolling, but this isn't. But back to the topic at hand, so not to hijack this thread. I was simply pointing out that someone could make a (weak) case that according to the constitution(the part about rebellion) that this guy could have been guilty of rebellion. He is an American citizen that was in ties with groups that want to destroy the US. That would him a rebel.

But who is he?

If s/he keeps trolling, I've promised to 'out' him/her/it. If s/he knocks off the trolling and attempts honest alternative viewpoints, s/he can retain anonymity.

Okay, that was trolling, but this isn't. But back to the topic at hand, so not to hijack this thread. I was simply pointing out that someone could make a (weak) case that according to the constitution(the part about rebellion) that this guy could have been guilty of rebellion. He is an American citizen that was in ties with groups that want to destroy the US. That would him a rebel.

But....he still would get a trial.

So I sign into an alternative account to give an alternative view (kind of like a devil's advocate) and I am trolling?You were advocating the Terror to combat terror. A devil's advocate needs to have some merit behind it, whereas what you posted is defeated with a simple link to French revolutionary history.

Trolls... where would forums be without them? :p

Okay, that was trolling, but this isn't. But back to the topic at hand, so not to hijack this thread. I was simply pointing out that someone could make a (weak) case that according to the constitution(the part about rebellion) that this guy could have been guilty of rebellion. He is an American citizen that was in ties with groups that want to destroy the US. That would him a rebel.The word thief strikes again! =O

Anyway, you could only argue that if you seriously stretch the definition of rebellion beyond what is reasonable. Treason comes closer, but even that is stretching it. Might as well argue that someone trying to bring about change we can believe in is trying to destroy the government in its current form.

Constitution is the class of Starfleet vessel that the Enterprise belonged to.

/me takes away Sdaeriji fake Vulcan ears. :D

Oy, you might want to reconsider that last statement. Think slowly and carefully. Think realy slowly. No, even more slowly, 'cause I got the best damn state in the union behind me, and we all got nothing to lose (Come on, we live in Jersey, you think anything out there scares us?)

This reminds me of a George Carlin line. "Kiss her where it smells. Take her to New Jersey".

Anyway, you could only argue that if you seriously stretch the definition of rebellion beyond what is reasonable. Treason comes closer, but even that is stretching it. Might as well argue that someone trying to bring about change we can believe in is trying to destroy the government in its current form.

And they still would get a trial.

And they still would get a trial.

A time trial? *Hops into Motorcart and drives round the track*

And they still would get a trial.I've already pointed out that I don't find using the Terror to fight terror a very smart thing to do in the first place.

I've already pointed out that I don't find using the Terror to fight terror a very smart thing to do in the first place.

Well, I think any rational person knows that... :)

Disgusting.

Disgusting.

Yet frightningly tempting... :p

Yet frightningly tempting... :p

Detaining people for years without trial?

Detaining people for years without trial?

Well, its a good way to start an Empire... :)

Detaining people for years without trial?
USA already has a history of doing that.

Extending it to Americans also is just equality, y'know!

What I want to know is, at what point is the military just going to stop carrying out these illegal orders? The fact that personnel are getting these documents to the media is good, but come on, people, I think a little insubordination is in order at this point.

What I want to know is, at what point is the military just going to stop carrying out these illegal orders? The fact that personnel are getting these documents to the media is good, but come on, people, I think a little insubordination is in order at this point.

Isn't it a soldier's duty to do what he/she is told? These orders come the top, right? So, like if a soldier disobeys and is court martialed, its not as if he can just say his CO made him do it, and hope to get off on that excuse. These orders are coming straight from the ones that are invincible; those in the executive branch.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_treatment

American Citizens held in the United States. I dare even the hardiest conservative to justify this.

When a "well-seasoned Senator" with decades of experience can't figure out what the role of the Vice President is in the Constitution, and can't remember which Article covers the Executive Branch, and puts his foot into his vacant cranium and insistently looks stupid, what hope do you have for the rest of America?

They hold other people in solitary, too. For much longer.

Ted Koscinski, for example.

Isn't it a soldier's duty to do what he/she is told? These orders come the top, right? So, like if a soldier disobeys and is court martialed, its not as if he can just say his CO made him do it, and hope to get off on that excuse. These orders are coming straight from the ones that are invincible; those in the executive branch.
"I was just following orders" hasn't worked since Nuremburg. Nowadays, US military law states that personnel are not obliged to obey illegal orders and, in fact, are obliged NOT to obey them.

When a "well-seasoned Senator" with decades of experience can't figure out what the role of the Vice President is in the Constitution, and can't remember which Article covers the Executive Branch, and puts his foot into his vacant cranium and insistently looks stupid, what hope do you have for the rest of America?

They hold other people in solitary, too. For much longer.

Ted Koscinski, for example.
Solitary confinement does not usually include light deprivation, no visits from family or lawyer, and not even a book to read. So unless you can prove that Ted Koscinski has been denied those things, then that part of your comment means nothing. And if you can prove it, it only shows that he is being abused as well.

"I was just following orders" hasn't worked since Nuremburg. Nowadays, US military law states that personnel are not obliged to obey illegal orders and, in fact, are obliged NOT to obey them.

Ah okay. As you might notice, I am not exactly a military man.

Two words: pine barrens. :eek::eek::eek:

I wub you :fluffle:

Best episode!!

"I was just following orders" hasn't worked since Nuremburg. Nowadays, US military law states that personnel are not obliged to obey illegal orders and, in fact, are obliged NOT to obey them.

They still try the defence.

Regardless, remember this for the debates when someone say that the soldiers can choose to disregard illegal orders. Many times they simply don't do that, because they're trained to do the opposite: Following orders without question. Sure, you might get clear-cut cases (Kill that child to make an example!) but in these more gray areas...

There's a debate going on about how much torture is "torture". When that's going on in public, how is a soldier supposed to identify an illegal order when he sees it?

Ah okay. As you might notice, I am not exactly a military man.
Neither am I, but when we've got shit like this going on in our country's military, I think it behooves us to know what the rules actually are.

They hold other people in solitary, too. For much longer.

Ted Koscinski, for example.

Well yeah, but he's already nuts so what do we have to lose? ;)

Besides, he had his day in court.

I wub you :fluffle:

Best episode!!



They still try the defence.

Regardless, remember this for the debates when someone say that the soldiers can choose to disregard illegal orders. Many times they simply don't do that, because they're trained to do the opposite: Following orders without question. Sure, you might get clear-cut cases (Kill that child to make an example!) but in these more gray areas...

There's a debate going on about how much torture is "torture". When that's going on in public, how is a soldier supposed to identify an illegal order when he sees it?
Well, the personnel at this prison seem to be doing a fairly good job at telling right from wrong. EDIT: Also, I have been told by people in the US military in this very forum that the US military requires basic familiarity with military law, including the issue legal/illegal orders, as part of training.

I do sympathize with them because they are over a barrel. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and do the right thing according to the rules when you know for a fact that the people you'll be bucking can fuck you over but good for it -- especially when you don't know that there are any higher ranking officers who will back you up. But I really do think there is a limit to what a citizen-army is going to go along with. As a civilian, I think we've reached that limit, but I admit I am impatient because I'm not under the same pressures as the military personnel.

Well, the personnel at this prison seem to be doing a fairly good job at telling right from wrong. EDIT: Also, I have been told by people in the US military in this very forum that the US military requires basic familiarity with military law, including the issue legal/illegal orders, as part of training.

I do sympathize with them because they are over a barrel. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and do the right thing according to the rules when you know for a fact that the people you'll be bucking can fuck you over but good for it -- especially when you don't know that there are any higher ranking officers who will back you up. But I really do think there is a limit to what a citizen-army is going to go along with. As a civilian, I think we've reached that limit, but I admit I am impatient because I'm not under the same pressures as the military personnel.

They are doing the right thing by bringing their misgivings and objections up the chain of command. Unfortunately their chain of command is attached to a huge fuckin' anchor that's being tossed overboard. :p

This reminds me of a George Carlin line. "Kiss her where it smells. Take her to New Jersey".

This might be a sad, sad indicator of my life, but to actually be compared to George Carlin...I'm tearing up right now. Seriously, it's just so damn beautiful.

George freakin' Carlin!

Isn't it a soldier's duty to do what he/she is told? These orders come the top, right? So, like if a soldier disobeys and is court martialed, its not as if he can just say his CO made him do it, and hope to get off on that excuse. These orders are coming straight from the ones that are invincible; those in the executive branch.

"I was only following orders!" didnt work for the Nazis at Nuremberg. Why should it work here?

"Its ok when America does it!" is not an arguement.

Well, the personnel at this prison seem to be doing a fairly good job at telling right from wrong. EDIT: Also, I have been told by people in the US military in this very forum that the US military requires basic familiarity with military law, including the issue legal/illegal orders, as part of training.

I do sympathize with them because they are over a barrel. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and do the right thing according to the rules when you know for a fact that the people you'll be bucking can fuck you over but good for it -- especially when you don't know that there are any higher ranking officers who will back you up. But I really do think there is a limit to what a citizen-army is going to go along with. As a civilian, I think we've reached that limit, but I admit I am impatient because I'm not under the same pressures as the military personnel.

There have been several high ranking JAG officers that have resigned due to the problems at GitMo, I'll try to find links for them.

When a "well-seasoned Senator" with decades of experience can't figure out what the role of the Vice President is in the Constitution, and can't remember which Article covers the Executive Branch, and puts his foot into his vacant cranium and insistently looks stupid, what hope do you have for the rest of America?

They hold other people in solitary, too. For much longer.

Ted Koscinski, for example.

Solitary confinement does not usually include light deprivation, no visits from family or lawyer, and not even a book to read. So unless you can prove that Ted Koscinski has been denied those things, then that part of your comment means nothing. And if you can prove it, it only shows that he is being abused as well.

Teddy was also charged, tried, and found guilty. IIRC the article states that this guy hasn't been.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_treatment

American Citizens held in the United States. I dare even the hardiest conservative to justify this.

Jesus Christ. I'm speechless. I am well and truly terrified of my country.

I won't say I'm terrified of the country, but of the government (see Redwulf's quote below). If it's this bad under a Republican, I shudder to think what it would be like under a Democrat. It's bad enough George W. Bush has this kind of power, but what would it be like with that power being wielded by Barack Obama? The thought frightens me enough to scare me out of voting for him.

I'm definitely voting for a third party candidate. Probably either Bob Barr or Ron Paul.

You'll find them, oh yes you will. They'll claim that the government can arrest whoever they want, whenever they want, all in the name of the great god "national security", that it's to keep them safe, and that they'll throw even their families and loved ones to the wolves, just "to be safe".

The Patriot Act MUST be overturned NOW!

And by "NOW!" I mean "before I finish typing this post".

Like the lapel button I used to have stated, I love my country it's my GOVERNMENT I'm afraid of.

Truer than ever! I don't trust the George W. Bush administration, but:

Barack Obama + Patriot Act = NIGHTMARES to me!

Here are a couple links about some of the stands some JAG officers have taken. There's a bit more out there, this is just a brief overview.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Oct08/0,4670,NavyLawyer,00.html From the Hamdan case, denied promotion.

These resigned in protest.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158983,00.html

http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/vandeveld_declaration_080922.pdf

Asked for reassignment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/us/23gitmo.html?_r=1&ei=5070&en=249175a890898cc3&ex=1185854400&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1185223886-UtLupuxMoBOXbx8CiWE9sg&oref=slogin

Hope those all work.

I won't say I'm terrified of the country, but of the government (see Redwulf's quote below). If it's this bad under a Republican, I shudder to think what it would be like under a Democrat. It's bad enough George W. Bush has this kind of power, but what would it be like with that power being wielded by Barack Obama? The thought frightens me enough to scare me out of voting for him.


Why?

I'm definitely voting for a third party candidate. Probably either Bob Barr or Ron Paul.

By all means, vote for a loon.

Barack Obama + Patriot Act = NIGHTMARES to me!

Any reason to back this up? I trust a man who spent his career as a civil rights attorny to deal with things that are unconstitutional.

Jezus H. Christ on a crutch....

Don't Bush and his cronies understand that there's pretty much no better way to piss someone of so much hes willing to bomb innocents than by holding him incomunicado for couple of years....

Well see there's only one problem with that; it's a logical assumption.;)

Isn't it a soldier's duty to do what he/she is told? These orders come the top, right? So, like if a soldier disobeys and is court martialed, its not as if he can just say his CO made him do it, and hope to get off on that excuse. These orders are coming straight from the ones that are invincible; those in the executive branch.

Nuremberg trials, which means that there should be a violent overthrow of the old establishment by external forces, a prospect I do not find entirely unappealing, first I suppose.

Nothing cries freedom and democracy louder than disregarding the very principles and laws on which they are based and by which they function.

One heckuva job!

And... you don't torture... much.

Isn't it a soldier's duty to do what he/she is told? These orders come the top, right? So, like if a soldier disobeys and is court martialed, its not as if he can just say his CO made him do it, and hope to get off on that excuse. These orders are coming straight from the ones that are invincible; those in the executive branch.

Soldiers swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the president. They can disobey illegal orders (in fact, they can be court martialed for following an illegal order).

Nothing cries freedom and democracy louder than disregarding the very principles and laws on which they are based and by which they function.

One heckuva job!

And... you don't torture... much.

Really, someone needs to invade the US, overthrow our undemocratic regime, and institute a democracy for us.


Ive been saying that for years now.

Really, someone needs to invade the US, overthrow our undemocratic regime, and institute a democracy for us.


You'd just muck it up all over again in the space of a generation or three.

Any reason to back this up? I trust a man who spent his career as a civil rights attorny to deal with things that are unconstitutional.
He voted for its re-establishment in 2006. That's not to say he'd continue what it allows, it seems like both candidates would expand their power less liberally than the current administration, but I can understand why that would give someone a nightmare.

There have been several high ranking JAG officers that have resigned due to the problems at GitMo, I'll try to find links for them.
Yes, I recall reading about a few such incidents. Info would be appreciated if you happen to find some.

EDIT: Oh, you already did. Thanks. :D I need to catch up with all the posts before responding.

I won't say I'm terrified of the country, but of the government (see Redwulf's quote below). If it's this bad under a Republican, I shudder to think what it would be like under a Democrat. It's bad enough George W. Bush has this kind of power, but what would it be like with that power being wielded by Barack Obama? The thought frightens me enough to scare me out of voting for him.

I'm definitely voting for a third party candidate. Probably either Bob Barr or Ron Paul.

The Patriot Act MUST be overturned NOW!

And by "NOW!" I mean "before I finish typing this post".

Truer than ever! I don't trust the George W. Bush administration, but:

Barack Obama + Patriot Act = NIGHTMARES to me!

You're up in arms about the Patriot Act, but would vote for Bob Barr? Talk about putting foxes in charge of henhouses!!!

You'd just muck it up all over again in the space of a generation or three.

Not my generation! We'd take good care of it, I swear! :tongue:

Not my generation! We'd take good care of it, I swear! :tongue:

That's what they said last time.

Really, someone needs to invade the US, overthrow our undemocratic regime, and institute a democracy for us.


Ive been saying that for years now.And Palin's been saying the first two for about as long. Change "democracy" to "theocracy" and you got the trinity, boy howdy.

Really, someone needs to invade the US, overthrow our undemocratic regime, and institute a democracy for us.


Ive been saying that for years now.

A democracy??? Please, no democracy. America's issue is that its trying to build a democracy out of something that's not a democracy. Democracy doesn't work (I cite Plato's Republic for proof). Give us back the good ol' Republic we had in the George Washington days.

Its really sad that America has been on the downhill slide since its first president was replaced. But I have a feeling most countries his that slide even before that. :lol:

What I want to know is, at what point is the military just going to stop carrying out these illegal orders? The fact that personnel are getting these documents to the media is good, but come on, people, I think a little insubordination is in order at this point.

Two words: Milgram experiment. What kind of people are in the military? The kind that want to take and give orders, or they don't last long. They want nice, linear logic, chains of command, absolute trust. That's the way the military has to be, or it breaks down in a second. Which is why abuse of military power by the Commander-in-chief is that much more egregious.

Two words: Milgram experiment. What kind of people are in the military? The kind that want to take and give orders, or they don't last long. They want nice, linear logic, chains of command, absolute trust. That's the way the military has to be, or it breaks down in a second. Which is why abuse of military power by the Commander-in-chief is that much more egregious.

Forrest Gump: DONE, DRILL SERGEANT!
Drill Sergeant: GUUUUUUMP! Why did you put that weapon together so quickly, Gump?
Forrest Gump: [confused] You told me to, Drill Sergeant?
Drill Sergeant: Jesus H. Christ!
[looks at stopwatch]
Drill Sergeant: This is a new company record! If it wouldn't be such a waste of a damn-fine enlisted man I'd recommend you for OCS! You are gonna be a general someday, Gump, now disassemble your weapon and continue!

Really, someone needs to invade the US, overthrow our undemocratic regime, and institute a democracy for us.


Ive been saying that for years now.

We'll make great pets! (http://wiki.janesaddiction.org/w/index.php/Pets_%28Song%29)

Two words: Milgram experiment. What kind of people are in the military? The kind that want to take and give orders, or they don't last long. They want nice, linear logic, chains of command, absolute trust. That's the way the military has to be, or it breaks down in a second. Which is why abuse of military power by the Commander-in-chief is that much more egregious.
True. If I had my way, though, the next president would take the personnel who raised these flags, blew these whistles, and leaked these documents and promote them. I'd want people who can work within a system without becoming a mindless cog in the system to be in positions of giving orders as well as carrying them out.

I'm wondering why this is news?

Yaser Esam Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in 2001, and released to Saudi Arabia in 2004 after going through the appeals process.

José Padilla was arrested in June of 2002 and spent 3.5 years listed as an enemy combatant and was then tried and found guilty of abetting terrorism and conspiracy. He's doing at least 17 years in the Supermax.

Al-Marri is the only person known to be held as an enemy combatant on the United States mainland. While I don't condone some of his alleged conditions, being caught with 1700+ credit cards (none in your own name) and the number of Mustafa al-Hawsawi doesn't inspire confidence that he wasn't up to something. Dangerous? Probably. But should have been treated better than he has been.

You know, we COULD just hang threats to the state like they do in Iran. One of the problems with the death penalty in the US is that it isn't used enough to actually deter criminals.

You're up in arms about the Patriot Act, but would vote for Bob Barr? Talk about putting foxes in charge of henhouses!!!

Only Bob Barr and Ron Paul love freedomz!

I'm wondering why this is news?

Because, as the OP story said, new documents have just been released regarding the Bush Administrations attempts to get around the Constitution.

Yaser Esam Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in 2001, and released to Saudi Arabia in 2004 after going through the appeals process.

José Padilla was arrested in June of 2002 and spent 3.5 years listed as an enemy combatant and was then tried and found guilty of abetting terrorism and conspiracy. He's doing at least 17 years in the Supermax.

Al-Marri is the only person known to be held as an enemy combatant on the United States mainland. While I don't condone some of his alleged conditions, being caught with 1700+ credit cards (none in your own name) and the number of Mustafa al-Hawsawi doesn't inspire confidence that he wasn't up to something. Dangerous? Probably. But should have been treated better than he has been.

The bold statement is untrue, which is part of the point of the OP article.

Regardless, nice selective use of facts. Like ignoring how the "enemy combatant" title was manipulated to try to keep these guys out of the judicial system. Or how what you call "having gone through the appeals process" means the Supreme Court rejected the U.S. attempt to hold Hamdi without charges.

But you seem to have no problem with the government holding people for years without charges. Ever heard of a little things called habeas corpus or due process of law?

You know, we COULD just hang threats to the state like they do in Iran. One of the problems with the death penalty in the US is that it isn't used enough to actually deter criminals.

Cute. The solution to violations of the Constitution and human rights is summary execution?

We should hold ourselves to the standards of Iran?

Did you think through your post at all?

Because, as the OP story said, new documents have just been released regarding the Bush Administrations attempts to get around the Constitution.



The bold statement is untrue, which is part of the point of the OP article.

Regardless, nice selective use of facts. Like ignoring how the "enemy combatant" title was manipulated to try to keep these guys out of the judicial system. Or how what you call "having gone through the appeals process" means the Supreme Court rejected the U.S. attempt to hold Hamdi without charges.

But you seem to have no problem with the government holding people for years without charges. Ever heard of a little things called habeas corpus or due process of law?



Cute. The solution to violations of the Constitution and human rights is summary execution?

We should hold ourselves to the standards of Iran?

Did you think through your post at all?

I still fail to see why this is news: people have been accusing the Bush Administration of defiling/destroying the Constitution for 8 years now. That these documents have come to light on 3 cases over such a long period of time is pitiful at best. As with the lack of WMD in Iraq: *this* was the best that could be found after all those years of looking???
Heck, I postulate that the 9th circuit has stolen far more collective liberties with having a 90% reversal rate by SCOTUS!

Um, WHAT? Did YOU read the article? It named those three people. Al-Marri is the only person known to be held as an enemy combatant on the United States mainland, unless you can name others. QED.

As opposed to spy or saboteur, which is what these men would have been called in WW2 or prior times. You know, like how Johnnie Walker Lindh *should* have been executed for being a traitor.

SCOTUS *is* the highest court in the land. His father certainly didn’t just ring their doorbell – he went through the process.
No, I’m NOT fine with the gov’t holding people interminably without charges. And as you know, habeas corpus has been suspended before – by Lincoln and (I believe it was Grant?). That it has been denied to someone caught fighting us on foreign soil (which – check your passport… VOIDS your citizenship!) and a foreign student is not going to cause me to lose any sleep. Jose Padilla certainly got his due process and H.C. rights.

“Nice selective use of the facts”? Hmm, last I checked, that’s how an argument is MADE! Or do you (I think you claimed you worked in law?) actually argue both sides of the bench on a case? LOL!

No, I was pointing out that since the death penalty is under-utilized that the US is hamstrung fighting against an extremist enemy which does not value life. Do we have a better, more humanitarian system? Hell yes! Should we put some teeth into our sentencing? Also hell yes!

My point was that while their treatment wasn’t good, it was a hell of a lot better than they’d have gotten by most Muslim states (ie: Iran).

Oh, I think them through all right. Just because I don’t share your opinions doesn’t mean they are not thought out. But then, that’s the usual conceit of the radical left.

[QUOTE=Ifreann;14081078]Regress is the opposite of progress.


It is a play on words, pro/con progress/congress.

I still fail to see why this is news: people have been accusing the Bush Administration of defiling/destroying the Constitution for 8 years now. That these documents have come to light on 3 cases over such a long period of time is pitiful at best. As with the lack of WMD in Iraq: *this* was the best that could be found after all those years of looking???

Is it pitiful that our government has been hiding this information and it is just now coming to light through a Freedom of Information Act requiest? You betcha.

How does that make it not news??

Heck, I postulate that the 9th circuit has stolen far more collective liberties with having a 90% reversal rate by SCOTUS!

Nice non sequitur. And a fiction -- over the last several years the reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is comparable to the average reversal rate of the other circuits.

Um, WHAT? Did YOU read the article? It named those three people. Al-Marri is the only person known to be held as an enemy combatant on the United States mainland, unless you can name others. QED.

Um. Not only did you appear not to comprehend the article, you aren't reading what you are typing. The documents discuss THREE people--Padilla, Hamdi, and al-Marri--that were held that were held as an enemy combatant on the U.S. mainland. Al-Marri is the only one of those three still currently being so held.

And, given the difficulty with which information has been extracted about these three cases, the inference that there are no other similar prisoners is a dubious one at best.

As opposed to spy or saboteur, which is what these men would have been called in WW2 or prior times.

Your point is .....?

You know, like how Johnnie Walker Lindh *should* have been executed for being a traitor.

Yeah, someone who was never even charged with treason should have been executed as a traitor. :rolleyes: 'Cuz we know how the Bush Administration coddles those terrorists. :rolleyes:

SCOTUS *is* the highest court in the land. His father certainly didn’t just ring their doorbell – he went through the process.

Actually, "the process" was primarily argued over whether the defendants were entitled to any process at all. On that point, the Supreme Court has had to intervene multiple times.

No, I’m NOT fine with the gov’t holding people interminably without charges.

Good. Then you shouldn't defend it.

And as you know, habeas corpus has been suspended before – by Lincoln and (I believe it was Grant?).

And this is relevant because ....?

That it has been denied to someone caught fighting us on foreign soil (which – check your passport… VOIDS your citizenship!) and a foreign student is not going to cause me to lose any sleep.

It should. Habeas corpus is a basic right entrenched in our jurisprudence since the Magna Carta. You can't deny it to someone simply because you accuse them of something or because they are a "foreigner" (especially when that someone is a U.S. citizen or legal resident!!!).

Jose Padilla certainly got his due process and H.C. rights.

Yeah, because he finally got charged and tried after several years of illegal detention, Padilla's case is a real inspiration. :rolleyes:

“Nice selective use of the facts”? Hmm, last I checked, that’s how an argument is MADE! Or do you (I think you claimed you worked in law?) actually argue both sides of the bench on a case? LOL!

Any advocate worthy of the name knows that ignoring inconvenient facts and making misleading assertions are not good ways to make an argument -- especially not to a judge that will be hearing from both sides.

No, I was pointing out that since the death penalty is under-utilized that the US is hamstrung fighting against an extremist enemy which does not value life. Do we have a better, more humanitarian system? Hell yes! Should we put some teeth into our sentencing? Also hell yes!

So, are you now saying these defendants should get trials on death penalty charges?

Perhaps we should have the guilt phase of such trials before the punishment stage. Or is that just a "radical left" idea?

My point was that while their treatment wasn’t good, it was a hell of a lot better than they’d have gotten by most Muslim states (ie: Iran).

Which is a completely irrelevant consideration. Thank you for playing.

Oh, I think them through all right. Just because I don’t share your opinions doesn’t mean they are not thought out. But then, that’s the usual conceit of the radical left.

The clarity and thoughfulness of your comments speak for themselves.

Keep in mind, it is not just the current Bush administration. In the name of national security our government has abused and shreded the Constitution. Remember former FBI director Hoover and his secret files? I believe that they were all illegal. And when people were asking, the FBI, which is the agency we trust to protect our civil rights would lie about it.

But to go just a few years back, does the name Wen Ho Lee mean anything? Arrested for alleged nuclear espionage, not allowed to call his family and tell them he was arrested, not allowed to call and attorney, not allowed to have contact with anyone; and this was during the Clinton years, so there was no such bastardized beast as the patriot act.

We are giving our rights and freedoms a little at a time, and it will be too late when we realize that we are living in a police state.

Is it pitiful that our government has been hiding this information and it is just now coming to light through a Freedom of Information Act requiest? You betcha.

How does that make it not news??



Nice non sequitur. And a fiction -- over the last several years the reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is comparable to the average reversal rate of the other circuits.



Um. Not only did you appear not to comprehend the article, you aren't reading what you are typing. The documents discuss THREE people--Padilla, Hamdi, and al-Marri--that were held that were held as an enemy combatant on the U.S. mainland. Al-Marri is the only one of those three still currently being so held.

And, given the difficulty with which information has been extracted about these three cases, the inference that there are no other similar prisoners is a dubious one at best.



Your point is .....?



Yeah, someone who was never even charged with treason should have been executed as a traitor. :rolleyes: 'Cuz we know how the Bush Administration coddles those terrorists. :rolleyes:



Actually, "the process" was primarily argued over whether the defendants were entitled to any process at all. On that point, the Supreme Court has had to intervene multiple times.



Good. Then you shouldn't defend it.



And this is relevant because ....?



It should. Habeas corpus is a basic right entrenched in our jurisprudence since the Magna Carta. You can't deny it to someone simply because you accuse them of something or because they are a "foreigner" (especially when that someone is a U.S. citizen or legal resident!!!).



Yeah, because he finally got charged and tried after several years of illegal detention, Padilla's case is a real inspiration. :rolleyes:



Any advocate worthy of the name knows that ignoring inconvenient facts and making misleading assertions are not good ways to make an argument -- especially not to a judge that will be hearing from both sides.



So, are you now saying these defendants should get trials on death penalty charges?

Perhaps we should have the guilt phase of such trials before the punishment stage. Or is that just a "radical left" idea?



Which is a completely irrelevant consideration. Thank you for playing.



The clarity and thoughfulness of your comments speak for themselves.

If the average American knew exactly what Grant or FDR were doing, they'd have had much lower approval ratings than Clinton or W. There ARE such things as state secrets. That's a reason why we HAVE a government: to provide for the common defense!

Over the last several years? Does that include the 19 out of 22 in 2007?!?! ROTFLMAO.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/11/opinion/oe-fitzpatrick11
FACT: The 9th Circuit are the primary takers of individual liberties in this country, and is the most overturned.

Exactly as I said: It named three people. Al-Marri is the only person known to be held as an enemy combatant on the US mainland. ** Thanks for finally seeing what I typed!**
The inference that there MUST be more is also dubious – if the press found out about “secret” CIA flights and jails in Europe, do you really think that there are prisoners out there that no one has ever heard of?

My point is that in another time these men being jailed for a few years wouldn’t have even raised an eyebrow.

He wasn’t charged? Really? :rolleyes: So that 20 year jail sentence he’s serving is for what exactly? “Convicted of conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals” is what. I find the fact that Congress didn’t prosecute him for being a traitor to be nothing but political grandstanding.

You most certainly CAN. It’s been done all throughout American history: against the Native Americans, slaves, ex-slaves, interned Japanese in WW2, and almost every country the US has fought against, ever. Is the case of Lambdin P. Milligan during the Civil War so different? I don't think so!
The idea that it can’t be done now against people that are known to be actively working against the country is absurd.

And yes, Padilla’s case is a real inspiration: because against the bad, evil Bush policy, he still got his rights. :rolleyes: Again, back to the idea that in another era, his detention wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow.

Ignoring inconvenient facts like the 9th Circuit’s record? Yeah, you’re a champion advocate. LOL!

Yep. I firmly believe that the charge of treason (and ergo the death penalty) should have been brought up on Lindh and Padilla, as they’re still American citizens.

Nope, the left merely coddles everyone into believing that nothing is their fault.
Listen: While I am *not* for the suspension of H.C. in 99.99999% of all circumstances… yet there ARE times when it is justified.
Just like there are times when the death penalty is justified, and I don’t mean just 42 times in 2007 in the US when there are 3200+ people on death row. If the criminal is guilty, there is no reason why sentence isn’t being carried out for 10+ years!

Completely irrelevant? Really. I’m sure Daniel Pearl’s family is glad you said that.

Thanks. I’m glad that even someone like you can understand them. (Feel free to cut the sarcasm at any time.)

Exactly as I said: It named three people. Al-Marri is the only person known to be held as an enemy combatant on the US mainland. ** Thanks for finally seeing what I typed!**

Oops, my bad. I was misreading what you were saying. :$ I didn't notice earlier that all you were saying was that, although others are publicly known to have been held as enemy combatants on the US mainland, Al-Marri is the only person publicly known to be CURRENTLY held as an enemy combatant on the U.S. mainland. Sorry.

On the other hand, I was giving you credit for trying to make more of a point than just "Oh, yeah, well that is just one publicly known case of blatant violation of the Constitution and human rights, who cares?"!!!

Over the last several years? Does that include the 19 out of 22 in 2007?!?! ROTFLMAO.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/11/opinion/oe-fitzpatrick11
FACT: The 9th Circuit are the primary takers of individual liberties in this country, and is the most overturned.

I say "over the last several years the reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is comparable to the average reversal rate of the other circuits" and your response is to cherry-pick one year where the Ninth Circuit had a high reversal rate?

The truth of the matter is that--whether looked at over a long period like 1950-2006 (http://web.mit.edu/keithw/www/statestats.html), over a shorter period like 1994-2006 (http://web.mit.edu/keithw/www/statestats-1994.html), or over other recent periods (http://mediamatters.org/items/200606120001), the Ninth Circuit has neither the highest reversal rate among the U.S. Courts of Appeal nor is its reversal rate significantly higher than the average among the Circuits.

Regardless, your assertion that the Ninth Circuit is the "primary taker[] of individual liberties in this country" is bizarre and absurd. Can you name some of these individual liberties that have been taken away by the Ninth Circuit? (Keep in mind that, in many of the cases in which the Ninth Circuit has been overturned by SCOTUS, the Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of an individual liberty against government power and SCOTUS has overruled in favor of government power.)


My point is that in another time these men being jailed for a few years wouldn’t have even raised an eyebrow.

*snip*

You most certainly CAN. It’s been done all throughout American history: against the Native Americans, slaves, ex-slaves, interned Japanese in WW2, and almost every country the US has fought against, ever. Is the case of Lambdin P. Milligan during the Civil War so different? I don't think so!
The idea that it can’t be done now against people that are known to be actively working against the country is absurd.

So your argument is that we shouldn't be concerned about violations of the Constitution and denial of human rights because the U.S. has committed other such violations and denials in the past? That is more than just absurd. It borders on the depraved.

And the case of Ex parte Milligan (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=71&page=2), 71 U.S. 2 (1866), doesn't exactly help your cause. In Milligan, SCOTUS ruled that the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln was unconstitutional. As a result, Milligan was released rather than hanged. The words of the Court are relevant here:

The crimes with which Milligan was charged were of the gravest character, and the petition and exhibits in the record, which must here be taken as true, admit his guilt. But whatever his desert of punishment may be, it is more important to the country and to every citizen that he should not be punished under an illegal sentence, sanctioned by this court of last resort, than that he should be punished at all. The laws which protect the liberties of the whole people must not be violated or set aside in order to inflict, even upon the guilty, unauthorized though merited justice.

Oops, my bad. I was misreading what you were saying. :$ I didn't notice earlier that all you were saying was that, although others are publicly known to have been held as enemy combatants on the US mainland, Al-Marri is the only person publicly known to be CURRENTLY held as an enemy combatant on the U.S. mainland. Sorry.

On the other hand, I was giving you credit for trying to make more of a point than just "Oh, yeah, well that is just one publicly known case of blatant violation of the Constitution and human rights, who cares?"!!!



I say "over the last several years the reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is comparable to the average reversal rate of the other circuits" and your response is to cherry-pick one year where the Ninth Circuit had a high reversal rate?

The truth of the matter is that--whether looked at over a long period like 1950-2006 (http://web.mit.edu/keithw/www/statestats.html), over a shorter period like 1994-2006 (http://web.mit.edu/keithw/www/statestats-1994.html), or over other recent periods (http://mediamatters.org/items/200606120001), the Ninth Circuit has neither the highest reversal rate among the U.S. Courts of Appeal nor is its reversal rate significantly higher than the average among the Circuits.

Regardless, your assertion that the Ninth Circuit is the "primary taker[] of individual liberties in this country" is bizarre and absurd. Can you name some of these individual liberties that have been taken away by the Ninth Circuit? (Keep in mind that, in many of the cases in which the Ninth Circuit has been overturned by SCOTUS, the Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of an individual liberty against government power and SCOTUS has overruled in favor of government power.)



So your argument is that we shouldn't be concerned about violations of the Constitution and denial of human rights because the U.S. has committed other such violations and denials in the past? That is more than just absurd. It borders on the depraved.

And the case of Ex parte Milligan (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=71&page=2), 71 U.S. 2 (1866), doesn't exactly help your cause. In Milligan, SCOTUS ruled that the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln was unconstitutional. As a result, Milligan was released rather than hanged. The words of the Court are relevant here:

The crimes with which Milligan was charged were of the gravest character, and the petition and exhibits in the record, which must here be taken as true, admit his guilt. But whatever his desert of punishment may be, it is more important to the country and to every citizen that he should not be punished under an illegal sentence, sanctioned by this court of last resort, than that he should be punished at all. The laws which protect the liberties of the whole people must not be violated or set aside in order to inflict, even upon the guilty, unauthorized though merited justice.

:)

Yes, but as I wrote later on in the post: that there are 3 examples of what some consider Constitutional rights voilations is a joke. These are people trying to UNDERMINE the Constitution and destroy the Republic. They know/knew of more people trying to do the same. They do not get to enjoy the protections of the Constitution, as they are not a part of "We the People".

Cherry pick? Um... in the 1950-2006 link, the 9th still had a 67% reversed or vacated rate. That's higher than any circuits barring DC & Fed. In the second link, it's 77%, surpassing all other circuits. While the 2nd Circuit is close, the 9th had over 4 times the number of cases taken to SCOTUS. Either way, it's not good.

I'll list a few when I have some more time. I assume 4 will suffice?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concearned. My point is that we've regularly denied rights to those whom have taken up arms against us (or in the case of the ex-slaves and Interned Japanese, thought to have). It's not like we'd be deviating from past m.o.

Yes, SCOTUS ruled that... after the war! Lincoln was well within his rights to deny H.C. in Maryland and other critical territories during "the late unpleasantness".

Yes, but as I wrote later on in the post: that there are 3 examples of what some consider Constitutional rights voilations is a joke. These are people trying to UNDERMINE the Constitution and destroy the Republic. They know/knew of more people trying to do the same. They do not get to enjoy the protections of the Constitution, as they are not a part of "We the People".

So it your view that, so long as someone is accussed of something sufficiently horrible, they have no rights -- including the right to contest the charges against them.

Beyond suggesting that you actually read Boumediene v. Bush (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/06-1195.html), 553 U.S. ___ (2008), in which SCOTUS explains at length the purpose and value of habeas corpus, I offer the following food for thought:

Most Americans probably don't know the meaning of that creaky Latin phrase and have been left with the impression that it is some boutique legalism that just ends up coddling terrorists. Actually, habeas is perfectly straightforward. It is the ancient right of anyone seized by the king to cry out from the dungeon and say, "I've been wrongly jailed!" Then you get a chance to prove your claim before a neutral judge, or back to the pokey you go. Habeas puts a basic check on the most fearsome power of the state and any citizen's most primal fear—being locked away and forgotten, the civil equivalent of being buried alive.

This fundamental right was most famously codified in 1215 when, in the meadow of Runnymede, King John was forced to set his royal seal upon the Magna Carta, the seminal document that declared the rule of law above any man, including the king. The habeas hearing was among the first checks and balances. Habeas is an affront to the royalist impulse to consolidate all power under one king, or as Beltway ideologues call it these days, "the unitary executive."

The problem with opposing habeas now is no different than it was eight centuries ago: You're siding with the Sheriff of Nottingham.

link (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/exit-strategy-pursuit-of-habeas.html)

And Federalist #84 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm), written by Alexander Hamilton:

"[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone ... are well worthy of recital: 'To bereave a man of life ... or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.' And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the bulwark of the British Constitution.' "


I'll list a few when I have some more time. I assume 4 will suffice?

Sure, 4 will suffice. I look forward to your citations.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concearned. My point is that we've regularly denied rights to those whom have taken up arms against us (or in the case of the ex-slaves and Interned Japanese, thought to have). It's not like we'd be deviating from past m.o.

Again, this seems to be little more than "well, we've done bad shit before, so we should be able to do bad shit again." Among other things it ignores that what we've done before was BAD SHIT.

Yes, SCOTUS ruled that... after the war! Lincoln was well within his rights to deny H.C. in Maryland and other critical territories during "the late unpleasantness".

Um. No. The whole point is that Lincoln's action was wrong all along, although it took time for SCOTUS to say so.

We'll make great pets! (http://wiki.janesaddiction.org/w/index.php/Pets_%28Song%29)

Do they seriously have a new album coming out, or something? I've been hearing a lot more Jane's Addiction on my local Alternative station in the past two weeks than I have in probably the past year or so.

If the average American knew exactly what Grant or FDR were doing, they'd have had much lower approval ratings than Clinton or W. There ARE such things as state secrets. That's a reason why we HAVE a government: to provide for the common defense!

Having lower approval ratings than Clinton is not very hard to do. His maximum and minimum approval ratings were both higher than sodding Reagan.

What? LG posted a serious thread?! Am I on the right forum?

It is a play on words, pro/con progress/congress.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e293/MarsNova/GrammarNazi.jpg

Kinda.

Those damn wizard bastards! :mad:

Wizards are to clowns what ninjas are to pirates? That explains everything!

Having lower approval ratings than Clinton is not very hard to do. His maximum and minimum approval ratings were both higher than sodding Reagan.

Ooops!! Typed Clinton instead of Carter.

Fascism is fun

So it your view that, so long as someone is accussed of something sufficiently horrible, they have no rights -- including the right to contest the charges against them.

Beyond suggesting that you actually read Boumediene v. Bush (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/06-1195.html), 553 U.S. ___ (2008), in which SCOTUS explains at length the purpose and value of habeas corpus, I offer the following food for thought:

Most Americans probably don't know the meaning of that creaky Latin phrase and have been left with the impression that it is some boutique legalism that just ends up coddling terrorists. Actually, habeas is perfectly straightforward. It is the ancient right of anyone seized by the king to cry out from the dungeon and say, "I've been wrongly jailed!" Then you get a chance to prove your claim before a neutral judge, or back to the pokey you go. Habeas puts a basic check on the most fearsome power of the state and any citizen's most primal fear—being locked away and forgotten, the civil equivalent of being buried alive.

This fundamental right was most famously codified in 1215 when, in the meadow of Runnymede, King John was forced to set his royal seal upon the Magna Carta, the seminal document that declared the rule of law above any man, including the king. The habeas hearing was among the first checks and balances. Habeas is an affront to the royalist impulse to consolidate all power under one king, or as Beltway ideologues call it these days, "the unitary executive."

The problem with opposing habeas now is no different than it was eight centuries ago: You're siding with the Sheriff of Nottingham.

link (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/exit-strategy-pursuit-of-habeas.html)

And Federalist #84 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm), written by Alexander Hamilton:

"[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone ... are well worthy of recital: 'To bereave a man of life ... or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.' And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the bulwark of the British Constitution.' "



Sure, 4 will suffice. I look forward to your citations.



Again, this seems to be little more than "well, we've done bad shit before, so we should be able to do bad shit again." Among other things it ignores that what we've done before was BAD SHIT.



Um. No. The whole point is that Lincoln's action was wrong all along, although it took time for SCOTUS to say so.

IF they've taken up arms against the US, *and* are part of a larger conspiracy, yes. Thus why I consider them to be beyond the pale whereas Waco or Ruby Ridge (obvious citizens, not intending to bring down the Republic) are different.
"Innocent until proven guilty" does not hold on the battlefield -- with GOOD reason!

I'm well familiar with H.C... and you siding with Robin Hood, saying that theft, murder and destruction of private property are fine so long as the legitimate leader of a state is unpopular? :->

Alexander Hamilton also wrote:
The power of regulating the militia and commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the commond defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
...
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

http://books.google.com/books?id=kyLHm69dWjUC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=alexander+hamilton+%2Bdefense+of+the+country&source=web&ots=tjMRRfNsR8&sig=mxqOGTHNOMCgzxQijND6UhiYZHg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

While I agree that it is indeed "bad shit", I'd also point again out that (at the time) most of said "bad shit" was not considered so. I'd further point out that I'm saying that these sort of methods should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances. Like with our "Three Amigos".

I cite these four:

1. No suspicion needed to search laptops at U.S. borders, says Ninth Circuit
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9079738
...so much for reasonable search!

2. Silveira v. Lockyer (The 9th Circuit decides the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, unlike every other Amendment)
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement
...where to begin? :(

3. In Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School District, the 9th Circuit decided (IMO rightly!) that discussing religious beliefs or observances is not unconstitutional.
How then, did they rule in Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. that "God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance means monotheism, since saying the pledge is optional (as is listening to it)?
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/15/nation/na-scotus15
...which also dove-tails with #4, since the school is allowed to have its "day of silence" for pro-gay POV, but not any opposition to it! If you can opt out of something, you need to tolerate others doing it so long as there is no harm.

4. Court Upholds School Ban on “Homosexuality is Shameful” T-Shirt
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/21/local/me-speech21
...gay free speech is good, anti-gay free speech? Not so much.

Um. No. The whole point is that SCOTUS wouldn't even consider overturning the Prez during wartime. Just like now with Gitmo and these three (now one) guys.
Ergo, it was fine. Until trumped, the Executive Branch in particular has wide ranging powers. That's why we have checks & balances.

As deplorable as what happened is, I maintain that the Constitution is vastly overrated.

Two reasons:

A) It's a piece of paper. Nothing more, nothing less. A piece of paper is completely incapable of restraining a government, unless it somehow has magical ink, which it does not.

B) The flawed line of reasoning held by many is that rights are something that come from government (or, in this case, the much-vaunted magical piece of paper). They do not.

IF they've taken up arms against the US, *and* are part of a larger conspiracy, yes. Thus why I consider them to be beyond the pale whereas Waco or Ruby Ridge (obvious citizens, not intending to bring down the Republic) are different.
"Innocent until proven guilty" does not hold on the battlefield -- with GOOD reason!

Of the three defendants here, Hamdi was released without ever being charged and Al-Mari hasn't been charged with "tak up arms against the US," so you are talking about fiction from the get-go.

Nor is anyone talking about the heat of the battlefield, each of the three "enemy combatants" that are the subject of this thread have been/were held in U.S. custody for many years. Nothing "heat of the moment" or "battlefield" about it.

You may claim to understand habeas corpus, but your "If you are accused of X, you get no right to challenge X" denies the very heart of what habeas corpus is about.



Alexander Hamilton also wrote:
[i]The power of regulating the militia and commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the commond defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
...
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

http://books.google.com/books?id=kyLHm69dWjUC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=alexander+hamilton+%2Bdefense+of+the+country&source=web&ots=tjMRRfNsR8&sig=mxqOGTHNOMCgzxQijND6UhiYZHg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

WTF does that quote have to do with anything discussed in this thread, let alone why habeas corpus should be denied to alleged "enemy combatants"?



I cite these four:

1. No suspicion needed to search laptops at U.S. borders, says Ninth Circuit
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9079738
...so much for reasonable search!

2. Silveira v. Lockyer (The 9th Circuit decides the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, unlike every other Amendment)
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement
...where to begin? :(

3. In Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School District, the 9th Circuit decided (IMO rightly!) that discussing religious beliefs or observances is not unconstitutional.
How then, did they rule in Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. that "God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance means monotheism, since saying the pledge is optional (as is listening to it)?
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/15/nation/na-scotus15
...which also dove-tails with #4, since the school is allowed to have its "day of silence" for pro-gay POV, but not any opposition to it! If you can opt out of something, you need to tolerate others doing it so long as there is no harm.

4. Court Upholds School Ban on “Homosexuality is Shameful” T-Shirt
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/21/local/me-speech21
...gay free speech is good, anti-gay free speech? Not so much.

Valiant effort, but let's look at these cases.

1. U.S. v. Arnold (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABF5C42AFF3A5CB688257481007EC203/$file/0650581.pdf?openelement) (pdf) is a pretty straight-forward case and hardly cause for alarm. Searches of property at the border are per se reasonable:

“It is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity.” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 153 (2004). Generally, “searches made at the border . . . are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border . . . .” United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977).

The Supreme Court has stated that:
The authority of the United States to search the baggage of arriving international travelers is based on its inherent sovereign authority to protect its territorial integrity. By reason of that authority, it is entitled to require that whoever seeks entry must establish the right to enter and to bring into the country whatever he may carry.
Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 472-73 (1979).

Regardless, this opinion has not been overturned or reversed by SCOTUS, so it doesn't really support your argument.

2. I agree with you that the Ninth Circuit was wrong in Silveria, but I note that almost every other U.S. Court of Appeals had the same opinion. This is hardly an example of an out-of-control court.

3. Although you misstate it's holding, I'm glad you agree with Brown v. Wooland Joint Unified Sch. Dist. (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/445161), 27 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ninth Circuit in Newdow v. U. S. Congress (http://www.constitution.org/usfc/9/newdow_v_us.htm), 292 F. 3d 597 (CA9 2002) was rather clear and was not overturned on the merits. "Under God" was inserted into the Pledge by a federal statute. That statute violated the Establishment Clause, as did the school district's endorsement of a particular religious belief:

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. "[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion." Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60. Furthermore, the school district's practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge.

Regardless, what "liberty" did the Ninth Circuit deprive any one of by it's decision?

4. Harper v. Poway Unified School District (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement), 2006 WL 1043082 (April 20, 2006) is a complicated case that involves far more than simply "anti-gay speech is bad." We are talking about a school district in which there had been many incidents involving gay-bashing, including violence. And the student in question faced no actual discipline, just suppression of his message. Although I have some problems with the decision myself, it appears the Supreme Court wouldn't -- given its decision in Morse v. Frederick (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/06-278.html), 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007), that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" could be censored.

Um. No. The whole point is that SCOTUS wouldn't even consider overturning the Prez during wartime. Just like now with Gitmo and these three (now one) guys.
Ergo, it was fine. Until trumped, the Executive Branch in particular has wide ranging powers. That's why we have checks & balances.

Um. No. First, as I cited caselaw to that effect, the Supreme Court has said that the President is wrong in denying habeas corpus to enemy combatants.

Second, nothing the Court said in In Re Milligan suggests that the suspension of habeas corpus was OK but became illegitimate. The mere fact that it takes time for a case to be heard and decided by the Supreme Court does not mean that any actions taken in the meantime are legal.

Third, if there is no right of judicial review of Executive Branch actions (which is for what you appear to be arguing), then there are no "checks and balances." The right of habeas corpus is a critical check and balance.

Really, someone needs to invade the US, overthrow our undemocratic regime, and institute a democracy for us.


Ive been saying that for years now.

Good God, no. Our government is bad enough as it is. Let's overthrow our "undemocratic regime," and institute...nothing.

Good God, no. Our government is bad enough as it is. Let's overthrow our "undemocratic regime," and institute...nothing.

Yeah! Anarchy! I love prepetual gang warfare!

Yeah! Anarchy! I love prepetual gang warfare!

Anarchy =/= "perpetual gang warfare"


Besides, if you want a "democracy," good for you. Give yourself one. Don't shove it down my throat, though.

Anarchy =/= "perpetual gang warfare"


How cute and naive of you.

Good God, no. Our government is bad enough as it is. Let's overthrow our "undemocratic regime," and institute...nothing.

Anarchy =/= "perpetual gang warfare"

Besides, if you want a "democracy," good for you. Give yourself one. Don't shove it down my throat, though.

So "democracy" is "undemocratic"? :confused:

Regardless, without any government, where would we be?

I know:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html)

So "democracy" is "undemocratic"? :confused:

Regardless, without any government, where would we be?

I know:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

--Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html)

Did you just quote Thomas Hobes?


I love you.

How cute and naive of you.

How uninformed you are.

Medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England, Pennsylvania and other American colonies, and the (not-so) "Wild" West, were "perpetual gang warfare?"

How uninformed you are.

Medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England, Pennsylvania and other American colonies, and the (not-so) "Wild" West, were "perpetual gang warfare?"
Anglo-Saxon England was ruled by a king and his nobles, not really sure what you're on about here...

How uninformed you are.

Medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England, Pennsylvania and other American colonies, and the (not-so) "Wild" West, were "perpetual gang warfare?"

Yep, Id say if you think that those were anarchist "states" its you who is uninformed. Especially since every single place you mentioned had leaders at least at the local level.

Leaders/system of government =/= anarchy.

Can I have some of what youre smoking? It must be great shit.

So "democracy" is "undemocratic"? :confused:

Regardless, without any government, where would we be?

Free?

Free?
The most important freedom is the freedom to live. A state can provide welfare to its citizens and defend them in ways which small groups of people cannot.

Anglo-Saxon England was ruled by a king and his nobles, not really sure what you're on about here...

There was a king and nobles in Anglo-Saxon England, yes, but there wasn't a state. The king was elected and didn't have the power to aggress against his subjects. Anglo-Saxon England was run by something called the "hundred", which were voluntary associations.

Yep, Id say if you think that those were anarchist "states" its you who is uninformed. Especially since every single place you mentioned had leaders at least at the local level.

Leaders/system of government =/= anarchy.

Can I have some of what youre smoking? It must be great shit.

You can have leaders and anarchy. Anarchy just means that there isn't a compulsory territorial monopoly on jurisdiction, i.e. that you are not forced to follow just one leader who prevents entry. Hence, in medieval Ireland, how tuaths could choose their king, and the "hundreds" in England, and the godi in Iceland.

The peace was enforced in Ireland and Iceland through mutual hostage-taking.

There was a king and nobles in Anglo-Saxon England, yes, but there wasn't a state.
Yes, there was a state, which not only conducted almost all of the international trade at the time, but also collected taxes from its people to build reserves in times of need, and could form militia groups.
The king was elected and didn't have the power to aggress against his subjects.
No, being the King was a heriditary privelage, and he certainly did have the power to aggress against his subject.
Anglo-Saxon England was run by something called the "hundred", which were voluntary associations.
No it wasn't, it was run by a king at the top, and his nobles who were usually vaguely-distant family members in charge of regions such as Mercia or Wessex.

You can have leaders and anarchy. Anarchy just means that there isn't a compulsory territorial monopoly on jurisdiction, i.e. that you are not forced to follow just one leader who prevents entry. Hence, in medieval Ireland, how tuaths could choose their king, and the "hundreds" in England, and the godi in Iceland.



There was a king and nobles in Anglo-Saxon England, yes, but there wasn't a state. The king was elected and didn't have the power to aggress against his subjects. Anglo-Saxon England was run by something called the "hundred", which were voluntary associations.



lulwat?


Ok. Im done with you. Its hard to argue with someone who makes up history and leaves out other facts, like this one:


The peace was enforced in Ireland and Iceland through mutual hostage-taking.

The peace was enforced in Ireland and Iceland through mutual hostage-taking.

What's wrong with that? It kept chieves from fighting each other. If our leaders did the same then we would have a lot less war.

What's wrong with that?
It violates peoples' freedom, something I thought you believed in.
It kept chieves from fighting each other. If our leaders did the same then we would have a lot less war.
Uhu... distinctly implausible with the technology we have nowadays.

Yes, there was a state, which not only conducted almost all of the international trade at the time, but also collected taxes from its people to build reserves in times of need, and could form militia groups.

Not at the early stages. It was only with the creative interpretation king's peace, which was a forceable removal of one's restitution after it was received, that there began compulsion.

No, being the King was a heriditary privelage, and he certainly did have the power to aggress against his subject.

King = Anglo-Saxon word cyninge = 'chosen as king', and kings originally were just war leaders who would exchange plunder with freemen who would follow them. Only with repeated conquest did it become hereditary.

No it wasn't, it was run by a king at the top, and his nobles who were usually vaguely-distant family members in charge of regions such as Mercia or Wessex.

That was only later on, when the kings replaced the leaders of hundreds with their own ealdorman appointees. Before, the hundredsmann was a voluntary selected leader by those within the hundred.

It violates peoples' freedom, something I thought you believed in.

Uhu... distinctly implausible with the technology we have nowadays.

There isn't anything wrong with it because it is a voluntary arrangement to swap kids. If they don't want to be the chief's children, then they can run off. And i don't see how it is "distinctly implausible" if you have someone in your palace and their father attacks you.

There isn't anything wrong with it because it is a voluntary arrangement to swap kids.

Voluntary, of course, except for the kids.

If they don't want to be the chief's children, then they can run off.

Have you confused real life with a Charles Dickens novel? Would explain a lot.

Not at the early stages.
When would that be, then?
It was only with the creative interpretation king's peace, which was a forceable removal of one's restitution after it was received, that there began compulsion.
Uhu...
King = Anglo-Saxon word cyninge = 'chosen as king', and kings originally were just war leaders who would exchange plunder with freemen who would follow them. Only with repeated conquest did it become hereditary.
Our idea of chosen and theirs is very different. Think also of Thomas More talking about how he was against the reformation because his 'conscience' would not allow it - our modern, liberal idea of conscience is not what he was referring to, he was talking about his allegiance to Rome.

As to kings just being war leaders - not actually true, the king was also a major player in international diplomacy and trade at this time, I suggest you read Dark Age Economics for a more in-depth account of the period.
That was only later on, when the kings replaced the leaders of hundreds with their own ealdorman appointees. Before, the hundredsmann was a voluntary selected leader by those within the hundred.
A hundred was simply a subdivision of a county. You know that, though, right?

How uninformed you are.

Medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England, Pennsylvania and other American colonies, and the (not-so) "Wild" West, were "perpetual gang warfare?"
Why, yes, as a matter of fact, medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England, and the "wild west" WERE perpetual gang warfare.

I refer you to the entire history of intertribal European, particularly Scandanavian and Celtic, warfare and raiding, as well as the western US history of criminal gangs, range wars, and private family feuds.

As for the North American British (and French and Spanish) colonies, they had governments.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England, and the "wild west" WERE perpetual gang warfare.

I refer you to the entire history of intertribal European, particularly Scandanavian and Celtic, warfare and raiding, as well as the western US history of criminal gangs, range wars, and private family feuds.

As for the North American British (and French and Spanish) colonies, they had governments.

Sssh. Dont you know Anarchists are allergic to history?

Sssh. Dont you know Anarchists are allergic to history?
So are trolls, but every now and then, I like to watch them break out in hives.

When would that be, then?

Around 450-600, which was followed by a greater boost in king's power esp. with the Norman invasions.

Our idea of chosen and theirs is very different. Think also of Thomas More talking about how he was against the reformation because his 'conscience' would not allow it - our modern, liberal idea of conscience is not what he was referring to, he was talking about his allegiance to Rome.

As to kings just being war leaders - not actually true, the king was also a major player in international diplomacy and trade at this time, I suggest you read Dark Age Economics for a more in-depth account of the period.

It does mean chosen in the sense of voluntarily being followed. Freemen did choose between kings in said time period, with land changing about, this is shown because freemen did not have to swear an oath of fealty to a king until the 900s.

A hundred was simply a subdivision of a county. You know that, though, right?

A hundred was a subdivision of a shire, which was a sort of overarching court for people between hundreds.

Sssh. Dont you know Anarchists are allergic to history?

No, just to troglodytes like yourself. ;)

How uninformed you are.

Medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England, Pennsylvania and other American colonies, and the (not-so) "Wild" West, were "perpetual gang warfare?"

If you're looking for examples of stateless societies, why don't you point to Aragon and Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution?

If you're looking for examples of stateless societies, why don't you point to Aragon and Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution?

Because that would require him to know what he was on about, silly:p

Because that would require him to know what he was on about, silly:p

The Spanish Revolution shouldn't be news to anyone affiliated with the left in the past sixty years.

The Spanish Revolution shouldn't be news to anyone affiliated with the left in the past sixty years.

Or affiliated with anything remotely human really.

I'll give some justification. Wartime. Lincoln did it to. and why not deny due process to americans who are under suspicion of terrorism, many liberals, especially obama, seem to forget that there is such a thing as domestic terrorism and it is just as deadly.

I'll give some justification. Wartime. Lincoln did it to. and why not deny due process to americans who are under suspicion of terrorism, many liberals, especially obama, seem to forget that there is such a thing as domestic terrorism and it is just as deadly.

Oh, you're Unondum? You're under suspicion for domestic terrorism. Thankk you, and have a nice day in Gitmo, where we get mo' from you.:wink:

I'll give some justification. Wartime. Lincoln did it to. and why not deny due process to americans who are under suspicion of terrorism, many liberals, especially obama, seem to forget that there is such a thing as domestic terrorism and it is just as deadly.

especially convenient when we're in a perpetual war on terror, right? let's just suspend the constitution indefinitely while we're at it.

I'll give some justification. Wartime. Lincoln did it to. and why not deny due process to americans who are under suspicion of terrorism, many liberals, especially obama, seem to forget that there is such a thing as domestic terrorism and it is just as deadly.

And yet, nobody is locking up your many, many domestic Christian terrorist groups or denying them due process.

Furthermore, how much suspicion is enough? Is it enough to be a Muslim? Or perhaps it's enough to look at the wrong things on the internet? Or maybe, it's making a statement your neighbour doesn't like. Or maybe, he just wants your house.

Or affiliated with anything remotely human really.

There wasn't a single fucking sentence in my high school world history text book. History education really sucks in America.

And yet, nobody is locking up your many, many domestic Christian terrorist groups or denying them due process.

Thats cause there are no Christian terrorists. Just devout peace loving people who bring the word of our Lord through blowing up abortion clinics.

Thats cause there are no Christian terrorists. Just devout peace loving people who bring the word of our Lord through blowing up abortion clinics.

Fucking sigged.

Fucking sigged.

Im on a roll lately.

Free?

Probably dead when you try to resist the nearest community who decides "Fuck it, they have food, we don't have food, but they don't have guns and we do!"

I'll give some justification. Wartime. Lincoln did it to. and why not deny due process to americans who are under suspicion of terrorism, many liberals, especially obama, seem to forget that there is such a thing as domestic terrorism and it is just as deadly.

because we have a Constitution.

And because due process is a right guaranteed to all persons.

And because the right of habeas corpus is a fundamental good.

And dozens of other reasons that should be self-evident.

Thats cause there are no Christian terrorists. Just devout peace loving people who bring the word of our Lord through blowing up abortion clinics.

Out of curiosity... can you name some?
The only one I've ever heard of was an attempt in Austin last year, and it failed.

The Answer (http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i9885) to LG's question.

Out of curiosity... can you name some?
The only one I've ever heard of was an attempt in Austin last year, and it failed.
See table here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm).

Bush is a damn liberal! This is disgusting! What ever happened to conservatism? Us conservatives have been betrayed by Bush in so many ways. Do not insult conservatism by saying that conservatives support violations of Constitutional rights. Conservatism is the promotion of personal freedoms at the expense of big government.

Bush is a damn liberal!
Ha no.
This is disgusting!
Aye.
What ever happened to conservatism?
Reagan.
Us conservatives have been betrayed by Bush in so many ways. Do not insult conservatism by saying that conservatives support violations of Constitutional rights. Conservatism is the promotion of personal freedoms at the expense of big government.
Eh Conservatism is the promotion of err keeping things as they are, no?

Bush is a damn liberal! This is disgusting! What ever happened to conservatism? Us conservatives have been betrayed by Bush in so many ways. Do not insult conservatism by saying that conservatives support violations of Constitutional rights. Conservatism is the promotion of personal freedoms at the expense of big government.

And how do you explain the Conservative Republicans who voted for him again in 2004? Blaming Kerry when the problem was right under your nose the whole time is a disingenous copout.

Put an incompetent business manager into office and you reap what you sow.

Around 450-600, which was followed by a greater boost in king's power esp. with the Norman invasions.
Oh, aye, that bit was basically gang warfare.
It does mean chosen in the sense of voluntarily being followed. Freemen did choose between kings in said time period, with land changing about, this is shown because freemen did not have to swear an oath of fealty to a king until the 900s.
Aye that's not actually the same as what your original statement was, though.
A hundred was a subdivision of a shire, which was a sort of overarching court for people between hundreds.
No, a shire was and still is just a large administrative district.

And how do you explain the Conservative Republicans who voted for him again in 2004? Blaming Kerry when the problem was right under your nose the whole time is a disingenous copout.

Put an incompetent business manager into office and you reap what you sow.
Let's be honest, though, the 2004 elections were more about who you hated less as a candidate than who you liked better.

Let's be honest, though, the 2004 elections were more about who you hated less as a candidate than who you liked better.

Which is why people are starting to see (too late) the truth that appointing competent staff for key positions should never be a popularity contest.

Which is why people are starting to see (too late) the truth that appointing competent staff for key positions should never be a popularity contest.
For the general public to appoint people, they basically need to be charismatic. Elections of all kind are vaguely meritocracies, it's just that peoples' skill in public speaking is often more important than their actual policies.

Otherwise you get an authoritarian system based on who the leaders think are useful, which organisations like the UN don't like much.

I really think the best government is the one that let's people alone; stays out of the way.

You may be anonymous to the internet, but I'm a clown. We know you live. :)It are funny to note that he could simply be a internet bug who posts, but has self awareness. Which would mean he lives. Also, of course you know he/she/it lives as it posted, you never said you know where the creature lives so you cannot harm it, aside from causing the being to go insane through random internet assaults.:)

There wasn't a single fucking sentence in my high school world history text book. History education really sucks in America.

Wha?? I thought the Spanish Revolution was common knowledge!

...

*looks at textbook* We have ways of making you TALK!:wink:

Wha?? I thought the Spanish Revolution was common knowledge!

...

*looks at textbook* We have ways of making you TALK!:wink:

Take the textbook to... *scare chord* Room 101!

Wha?? I thought the Spanish Revolution was common knowledge!

Perhaps you're thinking of the Spanish Civil War, because the Spanish Revolution is certainly not common knowledge.

Oy, you might want to reconsider that last statement. Think slowly and carefully. Think realy slowly. No, even more slowly, 'cause I got the best damn state in the union behind me, and we all got nothing to lose (Come on, we live in Jersey, you think anything out there scares us?)

Washington was never behind you, Jerseyan

You'll find them, oh yes you will. They'll claim that the government can arrest whoever they want, whenever they want, all in the name of the great god "national security", that it's to keep them safe, and that they'll throw even their families and loved ones to the wolves, just "to be safe".

Explain to them how denying a citizen due process runs directly against what the Constitution says and is therefore entirely un-American and watch their heads explode.

Washington was never behind you, Jerseyan

We might not have that bit of real eastate with his name, but we've got the frikkin Delaware River. Eh? All those pictures of ol' George sailing across the water? That's us, punk. Yeah. Take that.

Sure, those pictures are even more inaccurate than most artistic renderings of historical events, since they take place at the wrong time of day, in the wrong weather, with the wrong "atmosphere," and maybe even with him going in the wrong direction (That one I'm not positive about), but it's still on our land. So HA!

Okay, "our land" might not have been the best phrase, but you know what I mean.

Explain to them how denying a citizen due process runs directly against what the Constitution says and is therefore entirely un-American and watch their heads explode.

You'll get "The Constitution is just a piece of paper" and "Patriotism is American!" arguments instead.

You'll get "The Constitution is just a piece of paper" and "Patriotism is American!" arguments instead.

And the chestnut, "Its not what it actually says, the framers of the Constitution didn't have to deal with terrorism. It's about the spirit of it." :wink:

And I'm not even American. :D

And the chestnut, "Its not what it actually says, the framers of the Constitution didn't have to deal with terrorism. It's about the spirit of it." :wink:

And I'm not even American. :D

"Considering that the Constitution is the spirit of the country, disobeying it cannot be patriotic. Therefore you are not patriotic. If you are not patriotic, then you must be a terrorist."

Even they can't argue with that. ;)

"Considering that the Constitution is the spirit of the country, disobeying it cannot be patriotic. Therefore you are not patriotic. If you are not patriotic, then you must be a terrorist."

Even they can't argue with that. ;)

Watch 'em try though.

Watch 'em try though.

They won't think it through though. The minute they hear that they're a terrorist, they'll put themselves in Guantanamo. It's a total knee-jerk reaction at this point.

They won't think it through though. The minute they hear that they're a terrorist, they'll put themselves in Guantanamo. It's a total knee-jerk reaction at this point.


I so wish that were true. It would make life so easy.

"Considering that the Constitution is the spirit of the country, disobeying it cannot be patriotic. Therefore you are not patriotic. If you are not patriotic, then you must be a terrorist."

Even they can't argue with that. ;)

They can actually. They'll go

"The Constitution was not written to protect combatants! They have no rights! Obeying the constitution means putting them A-rabs and terrorists in prison and shooting them! ghnaghaghna!" *sounds of boot being chewed* "Patriotism!"

They can actually. They'll go

"The Constitution was not written to protect combatants! They have no rights! Obeying the constitution means putting them A-rabs and terrorists in prison and shooting them! ghnaghaghna!" *sounds of boot being chewed* "Patriotism!"

That was so lifelike!

They can actually. They'll go

"The Constitution was not written to protect combatants! They have no rights! Obeying the constitution means putting them A-rabs and terrorists in prison and shooting them! ghnaghaghna!" *sounds of boot being chewed* "Patriotism!"

...But I'm talking about the U.S. citizen being GITMO'D, how in hell could a U.S. citizen be defined as a combatant? He's not citizen of a country we're at war with! He's one of us!

Unless they're saying that we're at war with ourselves, which would make them an enemy combatant.

I just realized that every argument they use can be used to justify them getting put into Gitmo. That's kinda cool in a very screwed up way.

...But I'm talking about the U.S. citizen being GITMO'D, how in hell could a U.S. citizen be defined as a combatant? He's not citizen of a country we're at war with! He's one of us!

Unless they're saying that we're at war with ourselves, which would make them an enemy combatant.

I just realized that every argument they use can be used to justify them getting put into Gitmo. That's kinda cool in a very screwed up way.

Well, we're busy having an arms race with ourselves, so a war with ourselves isn't too far away.

That was so lifelike!

I try to give things a flavor of authenticity.

...But I'm talking about the U.S. citizen being GITMO'D, how in hell could a U.S. citizen be defined as a combatant? He's not citizen of a country we're at war with! He's one of us!

It goes like this:

"He's not one of us! He's a traitor terrorist! The gubment says so! That's enough for me! Traitors have no rights! We string them up! We did that in WWII! We don't need to give them no pansy trials! It's our patriotic duty to kill them! gnarghrahgha! *sounds of fingers being chewed* "Freedom!"