Am I the only One?
POSTED BY: Chewie
UPDATED: Thursday, October 5, 2006 02:46
VIEWED: 15226
PAGE 3 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
This is a war that we did NOT start
"It's not what we say, it's what we do."
We started this by "meddling" in the political affairs of the middle east and our appetite for OIL!
"We Meddle" said by River in "Serenity"
2 Words...habeas corpus...If Auraptor was placed in prison for no reason, would anyone hear his screams?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...It also gets rid of habeas corpus. Look into it. The reason why the Senate Republicans voted for it wsa because they hope it will get shot down by SCOTUS.
SignyM, your right:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29detain.html
Quote:
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, arguing for an amendment to strike a provision to bar suspects from challenging their detentions in court, said it “is as legally abusive of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and secret prisons were physically abusive of detainees.”
The amendment failed, 51 to 49.
Even some Republicans who voted for the bill said they expected the Supreme Court to strike down the legislation because of the provision barring court detainees’ challenges, an outcome that would send the legislation right back to Congress.
“We should have done it right, because we’re going to have to do it again,” said Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, who voted to strike the provision and yet supported the bill.
The measure would broaden the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries and anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.
It would strip at Guantánamo detainees of the habeas right to challenge their detention in court, relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials. Those trials have looser rules of evidence than the courts.
It would allow of evidence seized in this country or abroad without a search warrant to be admitted in trials.
Hero,
Quote:
...except for the terrorists and the people who love them.
Terrorist lovers and Liberals such as these Republicans who voted against the bill:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml
Ron Paul (R-TX)
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
http://www.ontheissues.org/AVA/House/Roscoe_Bartlett.htm
Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD)
http://www.ontheissues.org/AVA/House/Wayne_Gilchrest.htm
Walter Jones (R-NC)
http://www.ontheissues.org/AVA/House/Walter_Beaman_Jones.htm
Steven LaTourette (R-OH)
http://www.ontheissues.org/AVA/House/Steven_LaTourette.htm
James Leach (R-IA)
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Jim_Leach_Homeland_Security.htm
Jerry Moran (R-KA)
http://www.ontheissues.org/AVA/House/Jerry_Moran.htm
AURapter,
Quote:
...When the 1st innocent citizen gets caught up in this so called threat to our rights, THEN I'll give notice.
Don't you understand that we won't ever hear of innocent citizens getting caught up in this because they cannot challenge their detainment? That's the point!
Please, read the bill. This is really creepy stuff:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6166:
EDIT- You have to enter the ":" at the end to get the link to work. Don't ask me why...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Don't you understand that we won't ever hear of innocent citizens getting caught up in this because they cannot challenge their detainment? That's the point!
Well, there's Maher Arar, but I guess he doesn't count since he's not a 'Merrican citizen, just an insignificant Canadian.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Well, there's Maher Arar, but I guess he doesn't count since he's not a 'Merrican citizen, just an insignificant Canadian.
Arar was detained in Sept. of 2002. Long before this bill passed (yesterday).
EDIT- Oh, innocent. Now I get it. Sorry!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course, I think this bill is obviously meaningless. I mean they're going to do whatever they want anyway, lawful or not. If they get found out, they just fall back on that 'inherent executive authority' crap. Only now they'll detain innocent people indefinitely, to keep stories like Arar's from coming out. Cause, you know, such accounts only help the terr'ists. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Auraptor, if a foreign power 'knows beyond a doubt' and they tell us so, that they have captured yankee spies, or hell, whatabout 'yankee terrorists' sneaking around marking cites to be bombed', then in order to unearth our Amerifacist plots, you would say that all methods that we have just afforded ourselves are well within reasonable bounds to be used against Americans?
This is the problem with your reasoning. You would argue I'm sure, that when an Iranian calls an American a terrorist that he is either crazy or dishonest. You would argue that when our administration does it, it is 100 percent certain. That doesn't gel well with our government's track record on anything it has been certain of in these last 5 years. They have not proven to be infalible or even competent at a level where you as the American Citizen should relinquish your responsibility of oversight over their conduct.
But you really don't care...you just want to lash back out at whatever you can pin the pain of 9/11 on. That's not bravery, that's cowardice. Nor is it bravery to toss out our constitutional rights for the sake of your sense of safety - THAT is letting terror win...THAT is letting the terrorists win. THAT is you, succombing to terror.
Pussy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to quote myself, just because I'm really really pissed:
Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.- Benjamin Franklin
I find it appalling that I have to quote Benjamin Franklin to people who are supposed patriots. Do you think that the Founding Fathers faced FEWER challenges than we do now? Think about it: they were fighting not only a recognized government... one which still commanded the loyalty of a great number of colonists, and which would have them hung as traitors should they lose... they were trying a breathtaking experiment in creating a republic... and their very homes and families were at stake
And they did not hide behind religion or fascism or convention to achieve their goals. You people who claim to be patriots are sniveling, ass-crapping cowards unfit for freedom.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find it interesting that is it the BUSH fanatics that support this bill. What is it about them that makes them willing to trade everything - freedom, security, integrity, humanity, even sanity - for a dull-witted, drug-addled sociopath?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fear.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I find it interesting that is it the BUSH fanatics that support this bill. What is it about them that makes them willing to trade everything - freedom, security, integrity, humanity, even sanity - for a dull-witted, drug-addled sociopath?
This is what's been on my mind. What makes fascism such an enduring concept? Why do societies return to it again and again?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME