Habeas Corpus, R.I.P.- (YOU ARE REQUIRED TO WATCH THIS)

[Crowley]

http://www.youtube.com/v/6Eh1in8s6Oc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (31 Cha. 2 c. 2) is an English statute passed during the reign of King Charles II to define and strengthen the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus, whereby persons unlawfully detained can be ordered to be prosecuted before a court of law.

The Act is often wrongly described as the origin of the writ of habeas corpus, which had existed for at least three centuries before. The Act of 1679 followed an earlier act of 1640, which established that the command of the King or the Privy Council was no answer to a petition of habeas corpus. Further Habeas Corpus Acts were passed by the British Parliament in 1803, 1804, 1816 and 1862, but it is the Act of 1679 which is remembered as one of the most important statutes in English constitutional history. Though amended, it remains on the statute book to this day.

we are deeply fucked.

[sk716]

I am stunned.

[Charles RB]

Judge Dredd has the removal of constitutional legal rights to a trial occuring in 2021, initially to heavy outcry from Congress until a load of new Congressmen were brought.

Boy, was John Wagner being optimistic when he wrote that. :(

Did anyone in the White House think through the potential future consequences of this?! Even if you assume Bush and his cronies won't abuse this Act, what happens when a President comes along who will?

[Damo]

*Shrugs.* They can't have the Dems (or... to be fair... SANE Republicans) out of office forever. And I'm fairly sure undoing this has moved to the top on the list of priorities of a lot of potential candidates.

[MrSuslov]

President Grant may not have succeeded in breaking the back of the Ku Klux Klan, but history did, regardless of what Mr. Olbermann thinks. Said organization has been on a terminal decline since the 1950s, I'd wager.

Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Turley are also wrong---I'd wager out of Olbermann's ignorance and reasons unknown for Mr. Turley---when they state that the whims of the President or Secretary Rumsfeld are all that matter in determining who is an unlawful enemy combatant. The plain language of the statute is "competent tribunal[s] established under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense", not "arbitrary and off-hand determination of Shrub or Darth Rumsfeld". Mr. Olbermann may have no regards for the professionalism of our military, but I do. Officers in the U.S. armed services swear an oath to the Constitution, not the Presidency, and I doubt they would confuse the two.

That Attorney General Gonzales was present at the signing ceremony is irrelevant for Mr. Turley's argument.

I'm certain that Mr. Justice Kennedy is unconcerned about being designated an enemy combatant, Mr. Olbermann's snide remark to the contrary. One doesn't get to the Federal Supreme Court without being rather unflappable, and I doubt that President Bush scares him.

Who we were when Mr. Turley's waterboarding prosecutions were going on was an absolute victor over a totally defeated National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan. It's very easy to take a moral high horse when your enemies lay in a bloody (and irradiated, in the Japanese case) heap before you.

I agree more than not with the President's viewpoint on what history will, by and large, ask.

[Karl J. Barnes]

http://www.youtube.com/v/6Eh1in8s6Oc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679



we are deeply fucked.

ReallY??? *jk* I agree and I am surprised, like Keith Oberman's guest/analyst(forget name), that we aren't all screaming WTF!?!?!? is wrong with Repubs and some of the Dems?

[Armless Penguin]

The irony of Bush's arrogance makes kittens cry.

EDIT: Did anybody else notice that the bill says "enemy combatants" are considered individuals whose actions occured before it was passed as well. That's rather ex-post facto, is it not?

[sk716]

ReallY??? *jk* I agree and I am surprised, like Keith Oberman's guest/analyst(forget name), that we aren't all screaming WTF!?!?!? is wrong with Repubs and some of the Dems?

I think you should be asking what the fuck is wrong with the American people to have let it get this far.

[Crowley]

President Grant may not have succeeded in breaking the back of the Ku Klux Klan, but history did, regardless of what Mr. Olbermann thinks. Said organization has been on a terminal decline since the 1950s, I'd wager.

Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Turley are also wrong---I'd wager out of Olbermann's ignorance and reasons unknown for Mr. Turley---when they state that the whims of the President or Secretary Rumsfeld are all that matter in determining who is an unlawful enemy combatant. The plain language of the statute is "competent tribunal[s] established under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense", not "arbitrary and off-hand determination of Shrub or Darth Rumsfeld". Mr. Olbermann may have no regards for the professionalism of our military, but I do. Officers in the U.S. armed services swear an oath to the Constitution, not the Presidency, and I doubt they would confuse the two.

That Attorney General Gonzales was present at the signing ceremony is irrelevant for Mr. Turley's argument.

I'm certain that Mr. Justice Kennedy is unconcerned about being designated an enemy combatant, Mr. Olbermann's snide remark to the contrary. One doesn't get to the Federal Supreme Court without being rather unflappable, and I doubt that President Bush scares him.

Who we were when Mr. Turley's waterboarding prosecutions were going on was an absolute victor over a totally defeated National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan. It's very easy to take a moral high horse when your enemies lay in a bloody (and irradiated, in the Japanese case) heap before you.

I agree more than not with the President's viewpoint on what history will, by and large, ask.
so torture is okay with you?

[Armless Penguin]

he plain language of the statute is "competent tribunal[s] established under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense", not "arbitrary and off-hand determination of Shrub or Darth Rumsfeld".

Correct, tribunals established under the authority of the President. If you don't realize why that means he's going to get his way, then look more closely.

Mr. Olbermann may have no regards for the professionalism of our military, but I do. Officers in the U.S. armed services swear an oath to the Constitution, not the Presidency, and I doubt they would confuse the two.

Commander and Chief. And Bush has already shown he cares not for the Constitution; it does, after all, expressly forbid any form of suspension of habeas corpus.

I'm certain that Mr. Justice Kennedy is unconcerned about being designated an enemy combatant, Mr. Olbermann's snide remark to the contrary. One doesn't get to the Federal Supreme Court without being rather unflappable, and I doubt that President Bush scares him.

I'm certain he isn't either, but it was pretty obviously sarcastic.

[MrSuslov]

EDIT: Did anybody else notice that the bill says "enemy combatants" are considered individuals who's actions occured before it was passed. That's rather ex-post facto, is it not?
That distinctly occurred to me as well. I'm curious as to how the statute intends to withstand an ex post facto challenge. The drafters of the bill must have some theory that they considered as valid justification; I'd like to see it.

so torture is okay with you?
I'm sorry; I didn't see where I said that.

[Three]

so torture is okay with you?

It depends on who you are torturing.

[Crowley]

It depends on who you are torturing.
you do realize that if we say it's okay to torture then we can't have the moral high ground when other countries commit acts of torture...

we essentially make it open season on U.S. soldiers... moreso than it is now.

[Three]

you do realize that if we say it's okay to torture then we can't have the moral high ground when other countries commit acts of torture...

we essentially make it open season on U.S. soldiers... moreso than it is now.

Its already open season and it always has been.

War is war. It is the evilest of man. It is not meant to have rules nor guidelines. You are out to kill your opponent. Since day one of human existence, man has been killing his brother and that will continue till the last day of human existence. Utopia will never come. All I can do as a human being is look out for my best interests, and if that means I have to split a head open to save those near and dear to me, I’ll do it without hesitation.

[Sharpandpointies]

Um...holy shit.

That's pretty much all I can say.

[MrSuslov]

Correct, tribunals established under the authority of the President. If you don't realize why that means he's going to get his way, then look more closely. Commander and Chief.
A minor correction: Ostensibly all servicemen---enlisted men, non-commissioned officers, and commissioned officers---take some variant of the following oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." The United States Army. (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm)

Let me direct your attention to the part about obeying the President's orders. It's not an absolute statement, and the next phrase is, along with history, what I place faith in: according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I am not a scholar of the UCMJ, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a clause in there that allows one to refuse an order which is believed to be unlawful. It obviously can't be a broad grant; privates can't---and shouldn't---debate generals in wartime, but I believe that the professionalism of our soldiers will win out.

My viewpoint is not unsupported by history; General Vernon Walters essentially refused a direct Presidential "suggestion" from President Nixon to utilize the CIA as part of the cover-up of Watergate and Watergate-related activities. I cannot believe that General Walters was one of a kind.

And Bush has already shown he cares not for the Constitution; it does, after all, expressly forbid any form of suspension of habeas corpus.
President Lincoln did it, and he's hailed as one of the greatest in history. It would appear that President Grant did so as well. Both of these men were not reviled by history.

I'm certain he isn't either, but it was pretty obviously sarcastic.Oh, I agree completely, but Mr. Olbermann's remark was really useless.

[Crowley]

Its already open season and it always has been.

War is war. It is the evilest of man. It is not meant to have rules nor guidelines. You are out to kill your opponent. Since day one of human existence, man has been killing his brother and that will continue till the last day of human existence. Utopia will never come. All I can do as a human being is look out for my best interests, and if that means I have to split a head open to save those near and dear to me, I’ll do it without hesitation.
Torture has been treated as a war crime by US.
Torture give false positives of information... Nearly EVERYONE in the intelligence community is AGAINST torture.

Furthermore... if the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were willing to blow themselves up... do you REALLY think torture is going to get true information out of them?

[That JonoGuy]

This really scares me. I have never trusted the president and now he's given himself more power? This is the kind of news everyone should be concerned about. I truly hope this is overturned somehow. Such cmplete power never should a president have.

[Three]

Torture has been treated as a war crime by US.
Torture give false positives of information... Nearly EVERYONE in the intelligence community is AGAINST torture.

Furthermore... if the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were willing to blow themselves up... do you REALLY think torture is going to get true information out of them?

I can only say I disagree with their viewpoint. Furthermore, when it comes to issues like these, America has always pretended to take the high ground but in reality, it has done whatever is necessary to protect its interests. With the media erasing this veil of secrecy, and politics eroding it further, the true ways have been outted. Just more evidence that Democracy is a failed experiment, but thats for another post at another time.

As far as extremists and anyone else who wants to hurt the American citizen goes, they might not give up information through torture, but it wouldn’t bother me to try. The end result will be the same and as bad as it sounds, it will save taxpayer dollars that could be put to better uses in this country.

I understand that I may come off as being an evil person, but its only because I understand the evils of man. I would love to have it any other way, however capitol punishment and the like has been around for thousands of years and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

[Sally Sensational]

I, um, I have no idea what to say to this . . .

Somebody, please tell me it's November 2007.

Anybody got an airboat? We could go hang out in the swamps for a while. I know people down there . . .

[Armless Penguin]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Well, the passage of this law blatently violates the Constitution. The lines are blurred here, with the President saying one thing and the Constitution saying another, and with the situation being as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if the military sided with the White House.


President Lincoln did it, and he's hailed as one of the greatest in history. It would appear that President Grant did so as well. Both of these men were not reviled by history.


True enough with Lincoln (though history, as they say, is written by the winners), but the general opinion of Grant, while not outright revulsion, ranges from ambivalence to slight condemnation. He certainly was not a very good president.

[PatrickG]

Torture does not protect our interests.

It does not yield truthful information.

This isn't a case of pragmatism trumping ideals.

Torture is not pragmatic and it has no value except as a form of sadistic pleasure, which is not a pragmatic method of operating.

How can we even consider torture after Abu Ghraib?

If our actions in the wake of such an event are not to eschew torture in all forms, are we not racitly approving of the rapes and murders of children and the elderly and of unlawful detentions now made retroactively legal by this law?

George W. Bush should face a death penalty war crimes trial before an international court. I cannot budge on this point.

I can only hope that Bush's actions will erode the power and prosperity of this country to the point where its future executives are forced to kneel to the international laws which past executives and past legislatures have authorized.

Our status as a super-power has eroded our freedom and at this point, I would prefer that we cease to be the world power that we are today than surrender one more iota of freedom in the name of defending the nation we have become.

[Crowley]

I can only say I disagree with their viewpoint. Furthermore, when it comes to issues like these, America has always pretended to take the high ground but in reality, it has done whatever is necessary to protect its interests. With the media erasing this veil of secrecy, and politics eroding it further, the true ways have been outted. Just more evidence that Democracy is a failed experiment, but thats for another post at another time.

As far as extremists and anyone else who wants to hurt the American citizen goes, they might not give up information through torture, but it wouldn’t bother me to try. The end result will be the same and as bad as it sounds, it will save taxpayer dollars that could be put to better uses in this country.

I understand that I may come off as being an evil person, but its only because I understand the evils of man. I would love to have it any other way, however capitol punishment and the like has been around for thousands of years and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

what veil of secrecy? failed experiment? except in most of Europe and Canada, Australlia, Japan and many, many other countries...

you do realize that by allowing our troops and intelligence agents to torture we further the extremists arguments against us right?
It doesn't save us any tax dollars... that's a total bullshit argument. If we get false positives out of torture.. WHICH WE DO. Then the department of homeland security boosts the alert level and puts more soldiers and Police men out on the street and WASTE tax payer's dollars.

Thus torture is not economically helpful. and neither is capital punishment by the way... which has NOTHING to do with this issue.

[MrSuslov]

Well, the passage of this law blatently violates the Constitution. The lines are blurred here, with the President saying one thing and the Constitution saying another, and with the situation being as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if the military sided with the White House.
WRT the supposed violation of the Federal Constitution, we shall see. Just because the President has signed a bill into law does not make it inviolate. Absent action from the Congress (and signature by the President), it is my understanding that the jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court is darned near what it says it is. They may yet shoulder their way in and say, "Nuh uh, Mr. President."

Where the military are concerned, fair enough. I believe that they will side with their oaths and the Federal Constitution. You bet A, I bet B. Time will tell who is more accurate. For all our sakes, I hope I'm right.

True enough with Lincoln (though history, as they say, is written by the winners), but the general opinion of Grant, while not outright revulsion, ranges from ambivalence to slight condemnation. He certainly was not a very good president.
Yes, history is written by the winners. If we win, President Bush is a tremendous leader of incredible foresight, vision, blah blah whatever. If we lose, it really won't matter what anyone thinks. As for President Grant, yeah, no real argument from me there. :p

Now to await my inevitable condemnation by Mr. Johnson as an authoritarian, a coward, or worse. :D

[Three]

what veil of secrecy? failed experiment? except in most of Europe and Canada, Australlia, Japan and many, many other countries...

you do realize that by allowing our troops and intelligence agents to torture we further the extremists arguments against us right?
It doesn't save us any tax dollars... that's a total bullshit argument. If we get false positives out of torture.. WHICH WE DO. Then the department of homeland security boosts the alert level and puts more soldiers and Police men out on the street and WASTE tax payer's dollars.

Thus torture is not economically helpful. and neither is capital punishment by the way... which has NOTHING to do with this issue.

Has Democracy failed? Not yet. The key term being "yet". We are only a few hundred years old. I am not judging in terms of years, I mean centuries. I do feel that when its all said and done, when I wont be here anymore, that in the history books it will read man could not rule himself, because man himself is chaotic in nature. Democracy only works when the citizen is focused on the whole instead of them themselves. Today that is not the case, and I believe what you are seeing now are the first warning signs of the collapse.

As far as wasting taxpayer dollars goes, who pays for these captives attorneys and their prison costs? We do. I'd rather for them to either be released or executed than have to burden these costs.

Personally, I grow tired of this issue and wish we would release Saddam and put him back into power because I do not feel the country of Iraq has shown they can handle freedom, nor deserve it. I thought we were going in for oil or to lay it to waste, and since we havent done either, it is a total waste of time and resources. As far as Afghanistan goes, we should be out of there with the clear stipulation if any thing that even closely resembles that tailban rises up again, we'll be back to clear it out.

[PatrickG]

Executing is more expensive than housing for life.

[Noah Johnson]

Yes, history is written by the winners. If we win, President Bush is a tremendous leader of incredible foresight, vision, blah blah whatever. If we lose, it really won't matter what anyone thinks. As for President Grant, yeah, no real argument from me there. :p

Now to await my inevitable condemnation by Mr. Johnson as an authoritarian, a coward, or worse. :D
Authoritarians ARE cowards, more or less by definition. Call it condemnation if you want; facts are facts, say I. Your cowardice is between you and your conscience; I don't enter into it.

As to "if we win"... you won't. Your side, the side of torture and cruelty, the side of fear and prejudice, the side of injustice and the rule of foolish men, always loses. The history of human civilization is the gradual advance of my side over your side, the expansion of human rights, human freedom, human dignity, over the shivering monarch-worship of the Dark Ages. Sometimes you lose sooner, sometimes you lose later, but you always, always lose.

And yes, I know that's not the side you think you're on. Again, I'm afraid, the facts are what the facts are; your opinion of them matters not a whit.

[Armless Penguin]

Whether or not the courts act on it is not an accurate judge of whether it is truly in violation of the Constitution. It is.

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.

Lincoln's case falls under the former, and Bush presumably feels his falls under the latter, despite the fact that it's fairly obviously implied as an invasion of our country.

Yes, history is written by the winners. If we win, President Bush is a tremendous leader of incredible foresight, vision, blah blah whatever. If we lose, it really won't matter what anyone thinks. As for President Grant, yeah, no real argument from me there.

You missed my point, but oh well. Lincoln's action was not right either (though, if such a thing can be, it was "more right" than Bush's, in that he did it for the prevention of rioting and militia violence and thus the direct protection of the people). Still, it should not have occured.

[Crowley]

If we lose, it really won't matter what anyone thinks.
except for the mothers,fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends who lost a soldier they love due to a pointless war.

oh and the Iraquis who've lost countless numbers in a pointless war.

Oh and our international allies who now can't trust the U.S. not to decieve them again into a false war.

Oh and the victims of Hurricane Katrina who could have used the military aid to help them when the administration bailed on them.

Same for the genocide in Sudan.

oh and the several dozen or so active and retired generals who promised their soldiers they would speak out for them... and asked Rumsfeld to resign only to be called cowards by the administration.

oh and the rest of the people of them United States who were lied to and have had they tax dollars wasted.

Oh and the people of Afghanistan... since we abandoned them and still didn't catch that guy...

What's his name? Osama Something or another... I'm sure Saddam was a bigger threat.

[Three]

Executing is more expensive than housing for life.

Last time I checked a case of shells was around 2 dollars and 50 cents.

[Armless Penguin]

I do feel that when its all said and done, when I wont be here anymore, that in the history books it will read man could not rule himself, because man himself is chaotic in nature. Democracy only works when the citizen is focused on the whole instead of them themselves.

You do realize you're arguing the exact reason why the Founders decided they ought not to go with a democratic government and instead settled on a Republic steeped in Federalism, yes?

[Crowley]

Oh... and this guy:
http://www.exploredc.org/images/presidents/01_01.jpg
this guy:
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs/thomasjeff.jpg
this guy:
http://img.tfd.com/authors/madison.jpg
and this guy:
http://www.danielnpaul.com/scan_image/Ben%20Franklin.jpg

for shitting on EVERYTHING they stood for...

[Three]

You do realize you're arguing the exact reason why the Founders decided they ought not to go with a democratic government and instead settled on a Republic steeped in Federalism, yes?

Yes, I do realize that what we have is not a "true" Democracy.

But it makes anyone feel better, "This republic steeped in federalism" will not stand the test of time.

[Armless Penguin]

Yes, I do realize that what we have is not a "true" Democracy.

But it makes anyone feel better, "This republic steeped in federalism" will not stand the test of time.

I was more referring to your statement that your arguments would eventually be written into history, saying that at the time of the Founding, it was already common knowledge.

[Crowley]

Has Democracy failed? Not yet. The key term being "yet". We are only a few hundred years old. I am not judging in terms of years, I mean centuries. I do feel that when its all said and done, when I wont be here anymore, that in the history books it will read man could not rule himself, because man himself is chaotic in nature. Democracy only works when the citizen is focused on the whole instead of them themselves. Today that is not the case, and I believe what you are seeing now are the first warning signs of the collapse.

As far as wasting taxpayer dollars goes, who pays for these captives attorneys and their prison costs? We do. I'd rather for them to either be released or executed than have to burden these costs.

Personally, I grow tired of this issue and wish we would release Saddam and put him back into power because I do not feel the country of Iraq has shown they can handle freedom, nor deserve it. I thought we were going in for oil or to lay it to waste, and since we havent done either, it is a total waste of time and resources. As far as Afghanistan goes, we should be out of there with the clear stipulation if any thing that even closely resembles that tailban rises up again, we'll be back to clear it out.you really need to read up on the title of this thread...

you're either ignoring the point of this thread and not reading the papers and/ or you're choosing to be willfully ignorant. Please read up and come back to discussing this with me... when you wish to contribute to the actual discussion.

[Three]

Oh... and this guy:

for shitting on EVERYTHING they stood for...

I do hope you realize that the founding fathers were a bunch of drunk, influential businessmen and military leaders who were the cream of the crop society wise that only cared to give a damn about the lesser man when it came time to rally them against a foe that prevented them from living a better standard of life.

Sounds just like today, doesn't it? History repeats itself ...

[Armless Penguin]

I do hope you realize that the founding fathers were a bunch of drunk, influential businessmen and military leaders who were the cream of the crop society wise that only cared to give a damn about the lesser man when it came time to rally them against a foe that prevented them from living a better standard of life.

Sounds just like today, doesn't it? History repeats itself ...

I hope you realize that, according to documented American history, you're completely wrong about the Founders, who were very much in tune with the wants and needs of their respective states. Which is why the New Jersey and Virginia Plans were pressed and why the Bill of Rights was rallied for. The Founders were an elite, for certain, but calling them uncaring and selfish is grossly inaccurate.

[Crowley]

just for clarification these are some of the points of what's going into effect (courtesy of the V):

* Certain sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are deemed inapplicable - including some relating to a speedy trial [Sec.948b (d)(1)(A)], compulsory self-incrimination [Sec.948b (d)(1)(B)], and pre-trial investigation [Sec.948b (d)(1)(C)].

* A civilian defense attorney may not be used unless they have clearance to view materials classified Secret. [Sec.949c(b)(3)(D)]

* Based on his findings, the judge may introduce hearsay evidence [Sec.949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a search warrant [Sec.949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [Sec.948r (d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [Sec.949d(f)(2)(B)].

* A finding of Guilty requires only a 2/3 majority [Sec.949m(a)]

* No defendant may invoke the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings on their behalf. [Section 5(a)]

* The President determines “the meaning and application” of the Geneva Conventions banning the torture of prisoners. [Sec.6 (a)(3)(A)]

* The accused may be tried for the same offense a second time “with his consent” [Sec.949h(a)].

* If the military commission returns a finding of Not Guilty, its convening authority is not required to take action on the findings. [Sec.950b(c)(3)]

[Three]

you really need to read up on the title of this thread...

you're either ignoring the point of this thread and not reading the papers and/ or you're choosing to be willfully ignorant. Please read up and come back to discussing this with me... when you wish to contribute to the actual discussion.

I only responded to your comments about my own. If anyone took this conversation between you and I in another direction, it would be yourself. I did, however, provide some information about how I feel about "democracy" that had nothing to do with the topic, however I did type that was for another time but you decided to inquire further.

Furthermore, please don't toss around the "ignorant" label towards me in an attempt to make me look intellectually inferior to yourself. If you so wish not to converse any further, that is totally fine with me but don’t play games about it.

[Crowley]

I only responded to your comments about my own. If anyone took this conversation between you and I in another direction, it would be yourself. I did, however, provide some information about how I feel about "democracy" that had nothing to do with the topic, however I did type that was for another time but you decided to inquire further.
afeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
Furthermore, please don't toss around the "ignorant" label towards me in an attempt to make me look intellectually inferior to yourself. If you so wish not to converse any further, that is totally fine with me but don’t play games about it.
then let me spell it out for you...

As far as wasting taxpayer dollars goes, who pays for these captives attorneys and their prison costs? We do. I'd rather for them to either be released or executed than have to burden these costs.



In common law countries, habeas corpus (/'heɪbiəs 'kɔɹpəs/), Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

The very point of OUR tax dollars is to ensure Habeas Corpus... the title of this thread.

That way if you get arrested you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

[Magneto_X]

*Shrugs.* They can't have the Dems (or... to be fair... SANE Republicans) out of office forever.

With this bunch nothing suprises me anymore. :(

Hopefully the sane Republicans can take back their party in the next few years. At least you *respect* to them.

[Cam63]

Protecting the civil rights of the individual should be the foremost duty of any nation's leaders.

...and torture is a nasty, nasty thing.

[MrSuslov]

Authoritarians ARE cowards, more or less by definition. Call it condemnation if you want; facts are facts, say I. Your cowardice is between you and your conscience; I don't enter into it.
My conscience is assuaged by the preservation of the United States of America against men such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow travelers. Any "damage" we take in the meantime can only be redressed or repaired if we're still here.

As to "if we win"... you won't. Your side, the side of torture and cruelty, the side of fear and prejudice, the side of injustice and the rule of foolish men, always loses. The history of human civilization is the gradual advance of my side over your side, the expansion of human rights, human freedom, human dignity, over the shivering monarch-worship of the Dark Ages. Sometimes you lose sooner, sometimes you lose later, but you always, always lose.
Uh, OK. Whatever you say. My use of "we" is shorthand for "the people of the United States of America", not some amorphous and shadowy clique led by the Cigarette-Smoking Man, or a legion of black-clad agents of the Matrix. If I'm carrying water for C.G.B. Spender & Co., I want a lighter and the ability to control the World Series. Throw Marita Covarrubias on my arm, and we'll be good to go.

Besides, I'm not fond of monarchy. Continuity of government under such a system is terribly unpredictable, don't you know.

Lincoln's case falls under the former, and Bush presumably feels his falls under the latter, despite the fact that it's fairly obviously implied as an invasion of our country
In response to that, I'd say that there's more than one way to invade a country. It doesn't have to be a replay of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. We're remarkably safe from either of those two scenarios (unless Canada or Mexico pull something) but there are agents of a foreign entity coming here to do us harm, so characterizing this as an "invasion" might not be unreasonable.

You missed my point, but oh well. Lincoln's action was not right either (though, if such a thing can be, it was "more right" than Bush's, in that he did it for the prevention of rioting and militia violence and thus the direct protection of the people). Still, it should not have occured.
Oh. I didn't think that I'd missed it. Let me say this: President Lincoln had the luxury of pointing to General Robert E. Lee, the Army of Northern Virginia, President Jefferson Davis, and the Confederate States of America. President Bush can only point to al-Qaeda and its "affiliates", for lack of a better word. I think you and I could agree that this current struggle would be a lot easier if there was a single "Osamastan" that could be pointed to and subsequently invaded & subjugated.

[remarks snipped for brevity]
The same could be said after the defeat of the Republic of Vietnam in 1975; we managed to weather that. The definition of "lose" that I'm using figures that we'll have bigger problems than negative opinions if the other side starts scoring well against us. There are several definitions of "scoring well"; I'm probably still working on that list. You're not wrong, but I'm reminded of that scene from Cameron's Titanic where a White Star crewman tells Jack Dawson that he, Dawson, will have to pay for the door that he breaks down while escaping the liner. There would be more to worry about than the door.

[Armless Penguin]

My conscience is assuaged by the preservation of the United States of America against men such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow travelers. Any "damage" we take in the meantime can only be redressed or repaired if we're still here.

I'm reminded of the now cliché quote of "Those who would trade liberty for security . . ." Protection is well and good, but demeaning your sense of right and wrong and intentionally "damaging" something in the hope it will be repaired later is not the way to go about it.

In response to that, I'd say that there's more than one way to invade a country. It doesn't have to be a replay of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. We're remarkably safe from either of those two scenarios (unless Canada or Mexico pull something) but there are agents of a foreign entity coming here to do us harm, so characterizing this as an "invasion" might not be unreasonable.

Certainly. Now explain how suspending morality and basic human dignity is going to protect us from these "agents."

Oh. I didn't think that I'd missed it. Let me say this: President Lincoln had the luxury of pointing to General Robert E. Lee, the Army of Northern Virginia, President Jefferson Davis, and the Confederate States of America. President Bush can only point to al-Qaeda and its "affiliates", for lack of a better word. I think you and I could agree that this current struggle would be a lot easier if there was a single "Osamastan" that could be pointed to and subsequently invaded & subjugated.

Granted.

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

When I first clicked on this, I kept winding back to certain parts to make sure I heard what I did. And when that wasn't enough, I kept leaning in closer & closer to the monitor's speakers. Just simply turning up the sound didn't seem like enough somehow. Just un-Goddamn-believable.

[MrSuslov]

I'm reminded of the now cliché quote of "Those who would trade liberty for security . . ." Protection is well and good, but demeaning your sense of right and wrong and intentionally "damaging" something in the hope it will be repaired later is not the way to go about it.
From where I sit, that which preserves the lives of innocent Americans is right; that which endangers them is wrong. I'm not entirely sure that we are damaging anything; if there is damage, our fleets of lawyers can undo it in the future. If we're still here. The military is not the only institution in this country in which I have considerable faith.

Certainly. Now explain how suspending morality and basic human dignity is going to protect us from these "agents."
I wouldn't call it that, but here goes:

Reportedly, one of Mr. bin Laden's key beliefs is that the United States of America are "weak", that we aren't willing to sustain casualties and that we're not willing to fight for our country. It is therefore reasonable to believe that they're able to recruit agents based upon the notion that America's a soft target, that the agent will succeed in his mission because the Americans aren't tough enough to resist. And if they're caught? At worst, pull a few years in a prison cell and come back to try again later.

I suggest that we make life very difficult for these foreign operatives. Under the model in which Mr. bin Laden appears to have flourished, we had to catch each of these guys by the Federal Rules of Evidence and so forth. This system, although nice on paper, failed in 1993 and 2001 at home, and other times abroad.

It gives us another arrow in the quiver against the foreign men, who after all, are only human. They may be willing to die, but they'd prefer to die in completing their objective. It may be that we can dissuade a certain percentage of them by letting word get out that America's no longer providing three squares and a cot at Club Fed for failed al-Qaeda operatives. Instead, prove a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba at best, or a bullet in the head and burial in the Chesapeake Bay at worst, with the distinct possibility of misery between capture and their ultimate fate.

Of course, I am unwilling to extend such forceful measures to American citizens. Five years into this, I'm still trying to figure out what to do with men such as Jose Padilla, because it's a Gordian knot of a problem where I don't want to make a mess of things. On the other hand, I hold no sympathy for foreign nationals who come here to do us harm; as far as I'm concerned, they've forfeited lots of things when they cross our borders with mayhem on their minds. If they want to play rough, that's fine. Complaints from their next of kin or others will be ignored. Of course, this may or may not be upheld by various laws, treaties, and/or executive agreements. After all, it's a statement of personal preference, not an accurate statement of U.S. policy.

The most accurate analysis as to the most preferable system would require access to classified intelligence data, like what we stopped under the 1990s system---sort of a save/loss ratio---and what we stopped under the Bush system. My analysis is, therefore, somewhat conjectural.

[Noah Johnson]

My conscience is assuaged by the preservation of the United States of America against men such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow travelers. Any "damage" we take in the meantime can only be redressed or repaired if we're still here.

We are the United goddamn States of America, sonny. I am disgusted that you think this nation I have loved my whole life is so pitifully weak that it could somehow be defeated or (based on your phrasing) eradicated by a pathetic bunch of dead-end theocratic morons. Do not try and claim your paranoid cowardice as fact, because Abraham motherfucking Lincoln (http://www.swcivilwar.com/Lyceum.html) says you're full of it.
Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

So, yes, MrSuslov, there is a threat to this country. Not to the name or the flag or the borders, but to the very concept of this country, the ideals, the values, the laws and the principles that ever made this nation worthwhile in the first place. If we lose those, then we become one of the very nations we were created in opposition to, retaining nothing but a thin veneer of cosmetic Americanism wrapped around a dead and rotting core.

That threat is you, MrSuslov. And those like you. It always has been, as Lincoln knew. And don't puff yourself up by joking about massive conspiracies; all you represent are weak-kneed thugs who think violence is strength. History is full of you. You do your damage in the short term, lose in the long term, and learn nothing. The threat to this country is that a small gang of these weak-kneed thugs has somehow seized power in our government. Their relentless opposition to this nation's principles, and your puling support of them, will take decades to repair.

If "we're not here" in the future, MrSuslov, it will be BECAUSE of Bush's efforts, not in spite of them.

[Lester C.]

Everyone one getting worked up. There is a check and balance system into place. If the legislature passes a law that unconstitutional the court system can overturn it. It’s not as if Bush has cherry picked members of the Supreme Court…OH WAIT HE DID. OKAY WE’RE FUCKED.

For those of you that think the Democratic Party is blameless in this affair ask yourselves how this bill got out of the House and Senate. I've said it once and I'll say it again. There needs to a purging of our elected officials. Now!!!

[Crowley]

oh yeah... here's the votes(again via The V):

Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea

and disappointedly...

McCain (R-AZ), Yea

[MrSuslov]

We are the United [expletive deleted] States of America, sonny. I am disgusted that you think this nation I have loved my whole life is so pitifully weak that it could somehow be defeated or (based on your phrasing) eradicated by a pathetic bunch of dead-end theocratic morons. Do not try and claim your paranoid cowardice as fact, because Abraham [expletive deleted] Lincoln (http://www.swcivilwar.com/Lyceum.html) says you're full of it.
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? One of the major reasons I don't take you seriously is your tendency towards profane and insulting tirades against those who have the nerve to not worship at your feet.

President Lincoln's words are easy for a man who apparently had no problems ordering General William Sherman and others to brutally subjugate the constitutent States of the Confederacy, utilizing in many places a scorched earth policy and a callous disregard for the civil liberties you profess to hold so dear. Furthermore, they are easy for a world where trans-Atlantic travel took the better part of a fortnight or more, and where the only "weapons of mass destruction" were large artillery pieces for siege warfare.

It took four years of non-stop warfare from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River in President Lincoln's era to ring up a butcher's bill of ~600,000. Give a man one functional atomic bomb and he can do that in about four seconds in midtown Manhattan. President Lincoln could not foresee the coming of such weapons. Furthermore, the technology did not exist for the easy coordination of attacks like al-Qaeda used on 11 September 2001. We are now a global society, for better or for worse and the 11th of September 2001 was one of the "worse" days.

On that day, we lost a handful of buildings in the City of New York. The result? The civil aviation system ground to a halt. The economy went off the rails and took a good while to recover, if it has. Two lousy airliners did this. What do you think might happen if future attacks hit more targets in more places with worse weapons? The enemy doesn't have to kill three hundred million American citizens; they merely have to knock this country's economy and government on its back. The road to recovery may or may not be traversable. I'd rather not be put in the position of having to find out.

That threat is you, MrSuslov. And those like you. It always has been, as Lincoln knew.
Given what we know about President Lincoln's willingness to use force in the pursuit of the preservation of the Union, I daresay that he'd probably like my position more than yours.

Men exist who a) want to do us harm and b) have the demonstrated ability to do so. You profess to love this country, yet show no evident interest in stopping them because to do so might tamper with your fantastical notions about a virginal abstract state of affairs where all is peace and love, and only Noah Johnson stands against the horrible forces of Suslov & Company. Me, on the other hand, I just want to keep my fellow Americans alive. I can live with that. I guess that makes me evil and weak-kneed.

And don't puff yourself up by joking about massive conspiracies; all you represent are weak-kneed thugs who think violence is strength.
You're the one suggesting that I'm somehow part of a nebulous pantheon of thugs throughout history. Don't get huffy simply because I ridiculed your notions by comparing them to other such groups.

If "we're not here" in the future, MrSuslov, it will be BECAUSE of Bush's efforts, not in spite of them.
Time will tell.

(again via The V)
Er, the what?

[kingdom2000]

Much like how Rome ceded more and more power to its Caeser leading to its fall, so to has the fall of America begun. Like them it was for "better" things, and like then the people allowed it out of fear. As is always the case with America, history shows us the mistakes but we boldly repeat them anyway and with pride over our own ignorance.

Those who defend the removal of the Bill of Rights by the simple act of labeling someone, anyone, a potential terrorist, whether the evidence exists or not, show that they never understood what America means. They are cowards who only care that it "will not happen to me." Its the same cowardice that allowed tryants to walk unimpeded, its the same cowardice that has destroyed great nations.

If you allow your desire for imaginary "security", really just another label for fear, to supercede your morals, your ideals, your sense of right, you are a coward. Wear the label with pride if you choose to but I certainly wouldn't.

[Tobias March]

I like how the two pundits see themselves as crusaders for truth, joking about being locked up in 'Gitmo'.

[El Santo]

I can only say I disagree with their viewpoint. Furthermore, when it comes to issues like these, America has always pretended to take the high ground but in reality, it has done whatever is necessary to protect its interests. With the media erasing this veil of secrecy, and politics eroding it further, the true ways have been outted. Just more evidence that Democracy is a failed experiment, but thats for another post at another time.

As far as extremists and anyone else who wants to hurt the American citizen goes, they might not give up information through torture, but it wouldn’t bother me to try. The end result will be the same and as bad as it sounds, it will save taxpayer dollars that could be put to better uses in this country.

I understand that I may come off as being an evil person, but its only because I understand the evils of man. I would love to have it any other way, however capitol punishment and the like has been around for thousands of years and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

How exactly does torture save taxpayers money? I don't even think you can call that a strawman argument...it's more like a snowman.

[the4thpip]

I, um, I have no idea what to say to this . . .

Somebody, please tell me it's November 2007.

Not to make you even more depressed, but that would be 2008.

[the4thpip]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20061019/stt061019.gif

I like the inclusion of Lynndie England.

[Jerry Kraut]

As far as extremists and anyone else who wants to hurt the American citizen goes, they might not give up information through torture, but it wouldn’t bother me to try. The end result will be the same and as bad as it sounds, it will save taxpayer dollars that could be put to better uses in this country.

Right, everything's just as long as it doesn't cost us money.


I understand that I may come off as being an evil person, but its only because I understand the evils of man. I would love to have it any other way, however capitol punishment and the like has been around for thousands of years and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

The actions of other people are the very best moral defense possible, i agree.

Also: Nothing stands the "test of time", that's what an entropic universe is all about.

[Sharpandpointies]

Executing is more expensive than housing for life.

Going in my sig, the moment I can find the space...

Protecting the civil rights of the individual should be the foremost duty of any nation's leaders.

...and torture is a nasty, nasty thing.

Can always count on Cam to make the point in a simple but precise manner.

[Charles RB]

War is war. It is the evilest of man. It is not meant to have rules nor guidelines.

So you're never ever going to complain about torture and inhumane of your country's POWs by enemies, deliberate bombings of civilian targets in your country that kill people you know, acts of ethnic cleansing, the use of nuclear weaponry on civilian targets etc etc?

Personally, I grow tired of this issue and wish we would release Saddam and put him back into power because I do not feel the country of Iraq has shown they can handle freedom, nor deserve it.

Then you're a tosser.

As far as Afghanistan goes, we should be out of there with the clear stipulation if any thing that even closely resembles that tailban rises up again

And an ignorant tosser, since the Taliban is still there, has still been there for years now, and is gaining strength & our forces in Afghanistan are currently shooting at the sods.

failed experiment? except in most of Europe

I dunno, having George Galloway be voted into office sure makes me wonder about this whole democracy thing...

[Alix Harrower]

I agree more than not with the President's viewpoint on what history will, by and large, ask.

Then you are a disgrace to your nation and understand utterly nothing of what America stands for. Shame on you, you miserable coward.

[Alix Harrower]

My conscience is assuaged by the preservation of the United States of America against men such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow travelers. Any "damage" we take in the meantime can only be redressed or repaired if we're still here.

You have no conscience, you gutter-dwelling pile of scum and vermin.

[Charles RB]

My conscience is assuaged by the preservation of the United States of America against men such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow travelers.

Well, considering al-Queda and their mates' lack of military firepower compared to the amount the United States has, I don't really think there's much of a threat of your country being destroyed.

It is therefore reasonable to believe that they're able to recruit agents based upon the notion that America's a soft target, that the agent will succeed in his mission because the Americans aren't tough enough to resist.

A lot of al-Queda's operatives are suicide bombers, I don't think it matters to them if America resists or not. They'll be dead. And since terrorists are non-state actors who are hard to be identified by soldiers unless they're attacking, a lot of the more military-based resistance will miss them (if they're smart) and whack into someone whose not a terrorist by accident, which just gives the terrorists something to point at and say "we were right about the West, see!".

And if they're caught? At worst, pull a few years in a prison cell and come back to try again later.

At worst, a terrorist - especially a terrorist that succeeding in killing people - is only going to get "a few years" in jail in an American court, under the current political climate? Got any examples of cases to support this?


Under the model in which Mr. bin Laden appears to have flourished, we had to catch each of these guys by the Federal Rules of Evidence and so forth. This system, although nice on paper, failed in 1993 and 2001 at home, and other times abroad.

And how is it going to work if you grab and arrest people without evidence they're terrorists? The actual terrorists just have to be a bit more secretive to sneak under the radar, which is what they're good at.

Meanwhile, you'll be grabbing innocent people by mistake - where you might not have legal jurisdiction, or people who are American citizens with legal rights as such - and detaining them as terrorists without sufficient evidence. This undermines the whole enterprise, because it's going to be noticed and reported that this is happening (especially if they're eventually let go after it's worked out they're not terrorists), and that undermines the entire legitimacy of the United States' anti-terror actions both at home & abroad and gives the terrorists a whole new load of propaganda to recruit with. Propaganda they don't have to make, coz you'd have done it for them.

It may be that we can dissuade a certain percentage of them by letting word get out that America's no longer providing three squares and a cot at Club Fed for failed al-Qaeda operatives. Instead, prove a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba at best

Which they already know because it's already been done and it's not worked at detering them.

It's worked very well against turning people against the current American government (quite a few of them American or allies to America).

[Arawn]

I find it funny that the person that started crying about people bypassing the law, is the same person that claimed all of the following.

The US has no right to keep illegal imigrants out.

The US should continue to allow Illegals to cross the border freely.

The US should continue giving free health care to these criminals.

The US should continue providing other government aid to said people who also are fighting not to become citizens as they would then have to pay taxes and help pay for all the free things they get illegally.

And that calling an ILLEGAL Imigrant a criminal is wrong.

Funny how when the law is subverted for what you want it's ok...But if it is done because there is no other way to save innocent lives Emp has a hissy fit.

[kingdom2000]

I find it funny that the person that started crying about people bypassing the law, is the same person that claimed all of the following.

The US has no right to keep illegal imigrants out.

The US should continue to allow Illegals to cross the border freely.

The US should continue giving free health care to these criminals.

The US should continue providing other government aid to said people who also are fighting not to become citizens as they would then have to pay taxes and help pay for all the free things they get illegally.

And that calling an ILLEGAL Imigrant a criminal is wrong.

Funny how when the law is subverted for what you want it's ok...But if it is done because there is no other way to save innocent lives Emp has a hissy fit.

I am on the repub side when comes to illegal aliens. but thats not the point. There are many ways to save innocent lives and they don't include subverting all that America stood for. What Bush and others have done is choose the lazy way out. The lazy way and the best way are not the same thing.

[kingdom2000]

Keith Olbermann gives an outstanding commentary on the end of Habeau Corpus and points out what I did, that by the victory fear has over American citizens and the desire for power from bush and his cronies, the death of America has begun. The terrorists have truly won.

Video here (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/OlbermannSpecialComment-RIPHabeus.wmv).
Transcript here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/18/countdown-special-comment-death-of-habeas-corpus-your-words-are-lies-sir/).

[sk716]

So, I found this island (http://realestate.escapeartist.com/P-27388/) for sale in Fiji.

http://realestate.escapeartist.com/_data_/re_images/usr_970989/re_27388/img_12K5MJ2H1J.jpg

Maybe if we all pitch in we can buy an island and escape the U.S. before it gets any worse.

[Arawn]

Although I am against Bush on this, I still ask how can you win if you are the only one playing by the rules.

We learned that the French tortured the men responsible for the train bombing in order to find the ring leader...nobody complained about that.

China and Russia actively use torture to stop insurgent groups and its worked for them, nobody yelled again.

England admitted to torturing german spies in the field to gain needed intel durring WWII. Once again nobody complained.

If most other governments have been caught or admit to using torture (even if only passive forms like sensory dep) and we know there is no other way to get the intel. Then why are we still not doing it.

Again, I still belive there must be another way, but I can't find one. And with just about everyone else having already proven how effective it is, why is the US the only one getting in trouble?

[Three]

MrSuslov: Just by watching how others react to your posts, I've learned just who are the people to converse with around here and those to stay away from and ignore. I am amazed on how many of these "debaters" actually break down like small children and begin name calling. Its quite humorous actually.

I do realize that on comic book message boards, video game message boards and anything that usually has to do with "geekdom" you don’t have to look hard to find the liberal "lemmings". Therefore, posts and viewpoints like your own are refreshing and welcoming for people who do like to discuss such issues.

*Thumbs Up*

[Arawn]

Methinks you're curefreak as I can see you hope to once again endear yourself to us.

[Charles RB]

But if it is done because there is no other way to save innocent lives

Prove there is no other way than suspending habeus corpus to save lives.


China and Russia actively use torture to stop insurgent groups and its worked for them, nobody yelled again.

People do yell about China and Russia torturing people.

England admitted to torturing german spies in the field to gain needed intel durring WWII. Once again nobody complained.

That's because when it comes to dodgy British conduct in WW2, people focus more on things like the saturation bombing of civilian areas that killed thousands of civilians. That kind of takes precedence in the Dodgy Things Wot We Dun In WW2 stakes.

And with just about everyone else having already proven how effective it is

Really? Most evidence, AFAIK, proves torture is ineffective because the people being tortured will just say what the torturer wants to hear, meaning people who aren't actually involved in terrorist action will confess they are because they think it'll stop them being tortured. It's a very uneven and crap way of getting intel unless you're lucky enough to catch the right guy. Since this is combined with suspending hebeas corpus and thus need for hard evidence, you're more than likely to end up torturing people who aren't terrorists - which is generally considered to be morally wrong.

[Arawn]

I assume you mean recently so I won't even mention using forms of coersion in WWII Vietnam or the Korean wars. All of which contributed to breaking enemy code to give us advance warning about attacks..

But like I said I am sure you mean recently so I wont mention that at all.

How about when Russia found one of the surviving members of the paramilitary group that killed all the kids in that school a couple years ago. He ended up giving up the rest of the group, which had been prepping bombs for more attacks.

Or how the French used (in their words) passive coercion to get the ring leader behind the train bombing. A man that was already out recruiting people for his next attack.

Both of these happenned in the post 9/11 both times the government involved credits the information they gained with saving lives.

Again I don't want to resort to it, but I am at a loss to find another equally effective way.

[the goddamn batman]

you don’t have to look hard to find the liberal "lemmings".

It's always a plesure to see someone refer to the liberals as 'lemmings'.:rolleyes: If only you could smell the shit on your own knees.

Three, you, from the start of this thread, have done nothing but flaunt your lack on knowledge on the matter and your basic misunderstanding of what America is and stands for. This same ignorance is what has allowed Bush to do what he has, and is doing. Destroying everything America is.



We are the romans.

[Charles RB]

I assume you mean recently so I won't even mention using forms of coersion in WWII Vietnam or the Korean wars. All of which contributed to breaking enemy code to give us advance warning about attacks.

We're also talking about conflicts where, unlike WW2 and Korea (Vietnam's a bit messier), the enemy aren't easily identifiable by uniforms. There's a far bigger risk of torturing someone who knows sod all and getting a load of false data as a result when dealing with anti-terrorism. From a pragmatic POV, this is a bit cack and could potentially cause loss of life by having the intelligence services focused in the wrong direction.

How about when Russia found one of the surviving members of the paramilitary group that killed all the kids in that school a couple years ago. He ended up giving up the rest of the group, which had been prepping bombs for more attacks.

Or how the French used (in their words) passive coercion to get the ring leader behind the train bombing. A man that was already out recruiting people for his next attack.

Whatif they get the wrong guy? Also, what happens when it gets out in Chechnya that the Russian army will grab and torture you if they think you're a terrorist? Historically, that doesn't help matters - it turns people against the authorities (in some cases, more so) and makes them unlikely to co-operate, it polarises the situation. And if they torture an innocent person, it gives the terrorists ammunition for recruitment.

Both of these happenned in the post 9/11 both times the government involved credits the information they gained with saving lives.

At the same time, an alleged major attack on UK-to-US airliners that could have killed thousands was foiled by regular police activity.

[Adam Crocker]

From where I sit, that which preserves the lives of innocent Americans is right; that which endangers them is wrong.

And how does suspending habeas corpus for terror suspects or allowing them to be tortured going to do that? How? We went over this awhile back and I pointed out that Saudi Arabia and the regimes of other countries from which groups like Al-Qaeda came have ignored due process and human rights for years. What happened? They ended up with a pack of religious extremists setting up bombs. How is adopting the very policies that gave rise to things like Al-Qaeda (or for that matter put Ayatollah Khoemini in power) going to help save American lives? If anything it seems to me that it will provide a shot in the arm to groups like al-Qaeda just as surely as Iraq has by proving Bin Laden right in what he has said about American being a imperialist presence. He's even said so himself. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/edicts.html)

Reportedly, one of Mr. bin Laden's key beliefs is that the United States of America are "weak", that we aren't willing to sustain casualties and that we're not willing to fight for our country. It is therefore reasonable to believe that they're able to recruit agents based upon the notion that America's a soft target, that the agent will succeed in his mission because the Americans aren't tough enough to resist.

Which is utter self-serving bullshit offered up by neo-cons and militarists so they can continue on the same foreign policy that has brought the U.S. to this point. I saw the same bullshit offered in the lead-up to Iraq. Look how well that went. Has Guatanamo and threat of torture seriously acted as a deterrent? Torture and deathsquads certainly haven't deterred the insurgency in Iraq.

Al-Qaeda got recruits because the Middle East is run by regimes that are both tyrannical and immensely corrupt. Their corking off political change meant throwing ones lot with religious extremism looked a lot more palatable. The U.S. has been targeted for supporting these regimes.

And if they're caught? At worst, pull a few years in a prison cell and come back to try again later.

You are seriously arguing that terrorists caught by US authorities would only spend a few years in a prison cell and get an opportunity to try again later? On the basis on what?

I suggest that we make life very difficult for these foreign operatives. Under the model in which Mr. bin Laden appears to have flourished, we had to catch each of these guys by the Federal Rules of Evidence and so forth. This system, although nice on paper, failed in 1993 and 2001 at home, and other times abroad.

If you are referring to Sudan's so-called offer, it didn't work because Sudan's offer was that he be sent to Saudi Arabia, but be pardoned thereafter. Nevermind that the U.S. didn't have anything to hold him on. The offer was never serious.

And 9/11 happened because federal agencies dropped the ball on connecting the dots, not because they weren't willing to toss out people's rights. Arguing otherwise is pure sophism.

[the goddamn batman]

Torture and deathsquads certainly haven't deterred the insurgency in Iraq.


In fact, it's reported to have only furthered their cause, but Bush wont releasse that paper because then the American people "could make up their own minds"!

And we all know how bad that would be.:rolleyes:

wait, I mean :( or maybe :mad: & :evilangry I don't even know anymore.

[Adam Crocker]

One of the posters at CBR and Congressional Candidate in Georgia, Loren Collins, makes a good point (http://voteloren.blogspot.com/2006/10/habeas-corpus.html) about maintaining habeas corpus, even for non-citizens.


All four agree that at least part of this law is unconstitutional, and I concur. Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states "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 nature of the War on Terror is not one of rebellion or invasion, and there are dire implications from claiming that it is.

The US of course is facing neither rebellion nor invasion, and terrorist groups have been unable to mount another attack on the U.S. And not due to heightened security (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500097.html). Of course he also outlines a more pointed reason to not be complacent about the application of habeas corpus.


As the professors say in the article, the bill might pass muster if it were limited to non-citizens captured and detained abroad, but it's far more sweeping than that. Even then, stories like that of Maher Arar (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A522-2003Nov4&notFound=true) remind us why we should not be too cavalier to take the writ away from persons we detain. As in Mr. Arar's case, there is great injustice done when we imprison an innocent and allow him no means of objective review or recourse. Our consciences may be clear when the "enemy combatants" are actually the terrorists we believe them to be; but what about those who aren't?

Granted Arar's deportation to Syria was partly due to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police giving the US government patently false information, but why was he deported to a place where he'd clearly be tortured in the first place?

[Jeff Brady]

I'm sorry; I didn't see where I said that.

He was asking a question, not making a statement. If it's no trouble, could you please answer it for us?

[Jeff Brady]

Methinks you're curefreak as I can see you hope to once again endear yourself to us.

Nah, Three uses punctuation & capitalization. The avatar is probably the only thing in common.

[Crowley]

I find it funny that the person that started crying about people bypassing the law, is the same person that claimed all of the following.

The US has no right to keep illegal imigrants out.

The US should continue to allow Illegals to cross the border freely.

The US should continue giving free health care to these criminals.

The US should continue providing other government aid to said people who also are fighting not to become citizens as they would then have to pay taxes and help pay for all the free things they get illegally.

And that calling an ILLEGAL Imigrant a criminal is wrong.

Funny how when the law is subverted for what you want it's ok...But if it is done because there is no other way to save innocent lives Emp has a hissy fit.

If you are attempting to compare this to illegal immigration then your sense of priorities ARE WAY THE FUCK OFF.

Also the 9/11 hijackers.... WERE NOT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!

[Arawn]

No I am pointing out that when people break a law you don't like, you have defended it and said it's ok. Yet a law you like might get abolished and you shit yourself in rage.

I don't think anyone that can argue that, breaking Law A is ok as long as nobody breaks Law B, should be standing here calling anyone else out.

I said it before, I'm saying it again..I am against the idea of torture and have continuously asked for a better solution. Nobody has offered one.

[Crowley]

well firstly, you completely mis stated all of my positions on illegal immigration.
I don't think anyone that can argue that, breaking Law A is ok as long as nobody breaks Law B, should be standing here calling anyone else out.Wow... you missed the entire point.
This is a BILL being passed into law. Likewise my stance on Illegal Immigration would have also included a bill being passed into law to make exceptions and take a holistic approach to illegal immigrants.

Neither of which have to do with breaking the law... I was for one bill and I'm against this one... that's called TALKING POLITICS.

I'm also for Stem Cell research, allowing gay marriage, and decriminalizing drug use and ending the Drug war...

None of those statements contradict the fact that Habeus Corpus is the most fundamental and basic element of U.S. Law.

With this now in effect the following can happen:
* Certain sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are deemed inapplicable - including some relating to a speedy trial [Sec.948b (d)(1)(A)], compulsory self-incrimination [Sec.948b (d)(1)(B)], and pre-trial investigation [Sec.948b (d)(1)(C)].

* A civilian defense attorney may not be used unless they have clearance to view materials classified Secret. [Sec.949c(b)(3)(D)]

* Based on his findings, the judge may introduce hearsay evidence [Sec.949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a search warrant [Sec.949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [Sec.948r (d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [Sec.949d(f)(2)(B)].

* A finding of Guilty requires only a 2/3 majority [Sec.949m(a)]

* No defendant may invoke the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings on their behalf. [Section 5(a)]

* The President determines “the meaning and application” of the Geneva Conventions banning the torture of prisoners. [Sec.6 (a)(3)(A)]

* The accused may be tried for the same offense a second time “with his consent” [Sec.949h(a)].

* If the military commission returns a finding of Not Guilty, its convening authority is not required to take action on the findings. [Sec.950b(c)(3)]

So in theory YOU can now be detained and beaten by police into a potentially false confession under duress. You could only use a court appointed or military attorney to represent you. Classified evidence that your own counsel would potentially be unable to see can be used against you. And If you are found not guilty they don't have to release you.

PS. You're doing a shitty job of attempting to paint me a hypocrite.

[the goddamn batman]

How about NOT torturing anyone? Brilliant. I know.

oh, and A-fucking-men, Crowley!

[Lester C.]

I think you should be asking what the fuck is wrong with the American people to have let it get this far.
They are afraid. The Bush administration saw to that. It's really that simple.

[Adam Crocker]

No I am pointing out that when people break a law you don't like, you have defended it and said it's ok. Yet a law you like might get abolished and you shit yourself in rage.

No, where did Crowley do that?

I said it before, I'm saying it again..I am against the idea of torture and have continuously asked for a better solution. Nobody has offered one.

This claims that we are actually facing an actual dilemma. But we aren't. Police and intelligence services in countries like the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain have dealt with terrorism using old fashioned investigative methods and non-coercive interrogation techniques while operating within the limits of laws that protect people's rights for many, many decades. There is no dilemma here except the entirely fake one erected by the administration's defenders who are arguing it is now suddenly necessary to strip terror suspects of their rights and subject them to arbitrary treatment. The same people who have used Saddam Hussein's own use of torture as a justification for invading Iraq.

[kingdom2000]

No, where did Crowley do that?



This claims that we are actually facing an actual dilemma. But we aren't. Police and intelligence services in countries like the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain have dealt with terrorism using old fashioned investigative methods and non-coercive interrogation techniques while operating within the limits of laws that protect people's rights for many, many decades. There is no dilemma here except the entirely fake one erected by the administration's defenders who are arguing it is now suddenly necessary to strip terror suspects of their rights and subject them to arbitrary treatment. The same people who have used Saddam Hussein's own use of torture as a justification for invading Iraq.

Good point. Alot of the cowards are acting like terrorism is a new thing that was created on 9/11 rather then something has bene around since government in any form as existed. Just because from the get go we had a president that chose to ignore any intelligence that didn't support his invade iraq doctrine doesn't mean that the tried and true methods don't work. Great Britain was able to deal with the IRA for decades without having to revoke everyone's rights.

Your a coward, thats fine, but thats your problem. Don't revoke my rights and disparage the America ideals I was taught so you can have the warm and fuzzies.

[Crowley]

No, where did Crowley do that?
yeah I don't recall ever advocating breaking the law.

[Arawn]

According to a recent Al Quidea manual that was released to the public today, all opperatives are to cease all cell phone calls (which was how we caught the 9/11 guys after the fact).

Stop any and all international calls, avoid any Muslim group or organisation that may be sympathetic.

Cease bringing in any new members.

And above all else, go as low tech as possible, avoiding all computer coversations and email (which is how the English plain bombers were found).

So if we can't wire tap based only on suspision, and they no longer even show up at places that are sympathetic. How do we catch them?

Why wont someone answer me? You're all bitching that I'm this horrid person because I said I didn't know if there was another way. I'm asking for 1...

Yet all you do is piss and moan that I am wrong...God you people sound like a political debate, no solutions no sugestions, just bash the other guy.

[Crowley]

Dude...

you didn't know the difference between a law and a bill.

bow out of this conversation, read... come back when you're informed.

[Noah Johnson]

Yet all you do is piss and moan that I am wrong...God you people sound like a political debate, no solutions no sugestions, just bash the other guy.
...it is not the "other guy" that we're bashing. It's people who are OPPOSED TO HUMAN RIGHTS. I don't give a crap if Nancy Pelosi, Larry Flynt, or Mr. Rogers is opposed to human rights, it remains wrong.

How is this even a debate in America? Human rights... pro or con?

[Arawn]

And when did I say torure was ok? I simply said it was effective, and that right now I don't know of any other way to get the intel we need...

So I asked for sugestions, and damn everyone jumped on the Arawn is a Psycho that wants to torture people.

Now if that was actually my goal, and I wanted the law to change, why do I keep asking for an alternative?

Why would I look for one?

Why would I say this is what they have changed so we cant rely on the old tried and true methods of getting information...

And why am I still asking for an alternative?

But ignore everything I said here but the word torture...it's working for most of you so far.

[Crowley]

why don't you read the fucking articles about the bill?

this isn't just about torture... it's about innocent until proven guilty changed to Guilty until proven guilty...

FOR EVERYONE!

[Noah Johnson]

Why would I say this is what they have changed so we cant rely on the old tried and true methods of getting information...
Yeah, we've spent most of our history getting information by listening to cell phone calls. We'll do what we've always done... human intelligence primarily gathered by humans. Nothing happening here is so new or terrifying that it's more important than human rights. Frankly, nothing happening here is even slightly new or terrifying if one takes a look at the actual facts, not the propaganda.

[Arawn]

6

6 times now.

Thats how many times I said I was apposed to the entire thing, yet also mentioned that the use of torture may be the only resort left...

6 Times I've been completely fucking ignored!!!

So I am done. And I won't be back...

6 goddamn times that I actually agreed with 90% of what you said and you still went ape shit and claimed I didnt.

6 times I was told I didnt say what I did.

6 times people tried to lie and say that saying I was against it meant I was for it.

6

Editted to include quotes from my original post since I know eventually someone will claim I didnt start against this, or that I was not from post 1 asking for an alternative...

Although I am against Bush on this, I still ask how can you win if you are the only one playing by the rules.

Again, I still belive there must be another way, but I can't find one. And with just about everyone else having already proven how effective it is, why is the US the only one getting in trouble?

Note this is a shortenned version from post number 66. Which was my first on this thread...this is my last.

[Crowley]

Bullshit.

You tried to paint me as hypocrite backed by lies and it backfired on you.
You didn't read any of the articles about this bill and mistook it for a law.

Furthermore you then got frustrated and tried to turn it into "okay so what do we do instead of torture?"

IGNORING the previous posts in regards to cost, false positive information and further endangerment of our troops.

[Alix Harrower]

And when did I say torure was ok? I simply said it was effective

This is a lie, and you are a liar.

[Adam Crocker]

Why wont someone answer me? You're all bitching that I'm this horrid person because I said I didn't know if there was another way. I'm asking for 1...

I never said you were a 'horrible person.' I merely said torture was unnecessary and pointed out why. There's really not that much point taking part in that debate if you are going to accuse your opponents of things they did not do becuase the debate isn't swinging your way.

Yet all you do is piss and moan that I am wrong...God you people sound like a political debate, no solutions no sugestions, just bash the other guy.

Like the point I made in response to you where I pointed out that various governments have dealt with terrorism for years without stripping people of their rights or resorting to torture?

And really, surveillance isn't limited to monitoring e-mail and cell phones. Hell the British were dealing with this in regards to the IRA years before either was available.

And when did I say torure was ok? I simply said it was effective...

But it's not. As I pointed out awhile back (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3720603&postcount=6575) torture generally leads victims to producing false confessions based on what they think their captor wants them to hear, rather that the truth, simply because they want it to stop. And the examples I used don't even go back to regimes like the USSR or Saudi Arabia. Instead it's people caught up in the US's net who were tortured while in captivity by American officials or deported to countries like Syria. It's not an effective means of gathering information at all.

And really, saying torture is effective is in effect saying it is okay because it is justified for practical purposes.

[Crowley]

well said, Adam.

[Three]

It's always a plesure to see someone refer to the liberals as 'lemmings'.:rolleyes: If only you could smell the shit on your own knees.

Three, you, from the start of this thread, have done nothing but flaunt your lack on knowledge on the matter and your basic misunderstanding of what America is and stands for. This same ignorance is what has allowed Bush to do what he has, and is doing. Destroying everything America is.

We are the romans.

I did not refer to all liberals as 'lemmings', just those associated on internet message boards such as this. Unfortunately, in places on the internet that I frequent its usually not hard to run into such groups because there is a connection between "fantasy" entertainment aimed at young adults and liberal views. Why? I haven't quite figured that one out yet, though I do believe it has to do with being out of touch to true reality. In any event, there are some people who refuse to go against the grain and will simply follow what the rest of the clique is doing, hence the 'lemmings'.

I do not categorize myself as either liberal, moderate or conservative. Nor am I Rep. or Dem. I will not damn a whole group by the actions of a few members, but I have found my experiences discussing politics with liberals on the internet to be most displeasing. Since they make up the majority of the voice on these type message boards, I find that most of the time they gang up on those who do not believe their thoughts, which in turn is quite hypocritical since thats one of the actions they rally against politically. I have also found them to be more vulgar in nature, which is the case in this thread. However, I would be lying if I haven't run into good liberal posters out there, they are just hard to find.

As far as what I believe America should stand for, I fully realize that my beliefs are not what the average citizen considers what this country should reflect. Are my thoughts wrong? Perhaps so, perhaps not. Thats up for the individual to decide, and in your case, you already have and I take no offense. However, I do take offense to someone once again calling me 'ignorant', which seems to be a word people toss around a lot here if people don't agree with their views. I am not ignorant, I just have different views that you. Its a shame that you don't understand the difference.

Either way, I plan to keep my visits here to a minimum, which I am sure wont hurt any feelings out there. I came here because I am a big fan of Gail’s writing, but since I’ve signed up, I’ve read such things as killing the President for war crimes (coming from somebody who certainly is against capitol punishment) and making fun of anyone who believes in religion. As I said in an earlier post on another board, I have walked into a hive of comic book stereotypes and it makes me feel embarrassed to be a comic book fan.

Oh and don’t worry, I wont let the door hit me on the ass because I’ll be running as fast as I can. :D

[Jerry Kraut]

I did not refer to all liberals as 'lemmings', just those associated on internet message boards such as this. Unfortunately, in places on the internet that I frequent its usually not hard to run into such groups because there is a connection between "fantasy" entertainment aimed at young adults and liberal views. Why? I haven't quite figured that one out yet, though I do believe it has to do with being out of touch to true reality.

Or you know, they enjoy cerebral stimulus, and imagination is the most powerful known to man. And what the hell is true reality?

In any event, there are some people who refuse to go against the grain and will simply follow what the rest of the clique is doing, hence the 'lemmings'.

I'm sure you agree that "lemming like behaviour" (can't come up with anythng better, to be honest), is a phenomenon that exists outside of fandom and such.


I do not categorize myself as either liberal, moderate or conservative. Nor am I Rep. or Dem. I will not damn a whole group by the actions of a few members, but I have found my experiences discussing politics with liberals on the internet to be most displeasing. Since they make up the majority of the voice on these type message boards, I find that most of the time they gang up on those who do not believe their thoughts, which in turn is quite hypocritical since thats one of the actions they rally against politically. I have also found them to be more vulgar in nature, which is the case in this thread. However, I would be lying if I haven't run into good liberal posters out there, they are just hard to find.

I wonder how much of this trend has it's foundation in you and your perception. Also: "I will not damn a whole group by the actions of a few members", yet you're making some very bold claims aren't you?

As far as what I believe America should stand for, I fully realize that my beliefs are not what the average citizen considers what this country should reflect.Are my thoughts wrong? Perhaps so, perhaps not. Thats up for the individual to decide, and in your case, you already have and I take no offense. However, I do take offense to someone once again calling me 'ignorant', which seems to be a word people toss around a lot here if people don't agree with their views. I am not ignorant, I just have different views that you. Its a shame that you don't understand the difference.

But you're not making these thoughts clear (not that you have to), while you dismiss the thoughts and opinions of others. That certainly looks ignorant.

[Noah Johnson]

Unfortunately, in places on the internet that I frequent its usually not hard to run into such groups because there is a connection between "fantasy" entertainment aimed at young adults and liberal views. Why? I haven't quite figured that one out yet, though I do believe it has to do with being out of touch to true reality.
Except that in actual practice, the group whose theories and policies always fail to map to reality is right-wingers. To be a "liberal" these days, all one has to do is point out observable facts. So how does this fact mesh with your theory?

[Charles RB]

I simply said it was effective

Except it's often not and has some big, obvious flaws in it.

right now I don't know of any other way to get the intel we need...

Standard policework and intel gathering seems to have worked so far.

Plus, if you're right about Al-Queda members being told to

cease all cell phone calls

Stop any and all international calls, avoid any Muslim group or organisation that may be sympathetic.

Cease bringing in any new members.

then we're dealing with an extremely wussy threat. The various cells can't even bring in new guys - and these are suicide bombers! A few bombs gone off and the entire cell's no longer a threat.

[Charles RB]

Great Britain was able to deal with the IRA for decades without having to revoke everyone's rights.

Well, let's remember that there were quite a few instances of police and army brutality against innocents in Northern Ireland, and allegations of the Royal Ulster Constabulary colluding with Loyalist terrorist groups at times. We weren't that nice in Northern Ireland for a long time.

Which actually supports your argument - coz look how many people in the affected areas turned against the British authorities and listened to paramilitary propaganda as a result!

[Crowley]

I did not refer to all liberals as 'lemmings', just those associated on internet message boards such as this. Unfortunately, in places on the internet that I frequent its usually not hard to run into such groups because there is a connection between "fantasy" entertainment aimed at young adults and liberal views. Why? I haven't quite figured that one out yet, though I do believe it has to do with being out of touch to true reality. In any event, there are some people who refuse to go against the grain and will simply follow what the rest of the clique is doing, hence the 'lemmings'.

I do not categorize myself as either liberal, moderate or conservative. Nor am I Rep. or Dem. I will not damn a whole group by the actions of a few members, but I have found my experiences discussing politics with liberals on the internet to be most displeasing. Since they make up the majority of the voice on these type message boards, I find that most of the time they gang up on those who do not believe their thoughts, which in turn is quite hypocritical since thats one of the actions they rally against politically. I have also found them to be more vulgar in nature, which is the case in this thread. However, I would be lying if I haven't run into good liberal posters out there, they are just hard to find.

As far as what I believe America should stand for, I fully realize that my beliefs are not what the average citizen considers what this country should reflect. Are my thoughts wrong? Perhaps so, perhaps not. Thats up for the individual to decide, and in your case, you already have and I take no offense. However, I do take offense to someone once again calling me 'ignorant', which seems to be a word people toss around a lot here if people don't agree with their views. I am not ignorant, I just have different views that you. Its a shame that you don't understand the difference.

Either way, I plan to keep my visits here to a minimum, which I am sure wont hurt any feelings out there. I came here because I am a big fan of Gail’s writing, but since I’ve signed up, I’ve read such things as killing the President for war crimes (coming from somebody who certainly is against capitol punishment) and making fun of anyone who believes in religion. As I said in an earlier post on another board, I have walked into a hive of comic book stereotypes and it makes me feel embarrassed to be a comic book fan.

Oh and don’t worry, I wont let the door hit me on the ass because I’ll be running as fast as I can. :D
whatever man... you did not contribute a single constructive thought or well researched opinion to this discussion and now you bow out.

So be it.

[Cam63]

Yep. You only need ONE story ( true or false ) to slip out that prisoners are being abused to turn a whole country against you.

[Noah Johnson]

Which actually supports your argument - coz look how many people in the affected areas turned against the British authorities and listened to paramilitary propaganda as a result!
Wow, violence begets violence... who could have seen that coming?

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I think the biggest contributor to the IRA calming the fuck down in recent years is the Irish economic miracle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Celtic _Tiger_.281990s-2001.29) It's real fuckin' easy to be a terrorist when you've got nothing to do all day and you're poor and miserable. When you've got a job, some money, some stuff you bought with your money, and a girl you attracted with your money and stuff, it's hard to work up the same interest in killing yourself for principle.

[Crowley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Qv9zSe0eg

[the goddamn batman]

I did not refer to all liberals as 'lemmings', just those associated on internet message boards such as this.

I never said you did. But, to say that the liberals are the lemmings at this point, when Republicans are backing this bullshit, is ridiculous.

Unfortunately, in places on the internet that I frequent its usually not hard to run into such groups because there is a connection between "fantasy" entertainment aimed at young adults and liberal views.

Or these are the people whoa re out there gathering infpormation from places other than Fox 'news'. At this point, man, it isn't about left and right. It's about right and wrong. What Bush is doing is wrong. he has removed the cornerstone of your and my, anmd everyone elses basic right to fair trial. Which, according to the constitution, is reason for the people to revolt against the government!

Seriously, if you are at all interested in this, beyond a liberal/conservative standpoint, watch Keith Olbermann's reports. There really is no denying the points he's illustrating.


Why? I haven't quite figured that one out yet, though I do believe it has to do with being out of touch to true reality.

You're right. The 'liberal lemming' are in touch with reality, while, anyone who still supports Bush, and this lattest action, are clearly not in touch with reality.

In any event, there are some people who refuse to go against the grain and will simply follow what the rest of the clique is doing, hence the 'lemmings'.

You mean, those who still support the president?

I do not categorize myself as either liberal, moderate or conservative. Nor am I Rep. or Dem. I will not damn a whole group by the actions of a few members, but I have found my experiences discussing politics with liberals on the internet to be most displeasing.

Most people find it displeasing to hear opinions that go against what they believe... when they refuse to aknowledge the facts that are slapping them in the face daily. There is a term for denying fatcs that refute what you believed to be true. Though, that term escapes me at the moment. You seem to suffer from this condition.

Since they make up the majority of the voice on these type message boards, I find that most of the time they gang up on those who do not believe their thoughts, which in turn is quite hypocritical since thats one of the actions they rally against politically. I have also found them to be more vulgar in nature, which is the case in this thread. However, I would be lying if I haven't run into good liberal posters out there, they are just hard to find.

whatever... this is just bullshit that has no relevance to the issue at hand, you're just damning an entire group of people for the actionsof a few.

As far as what I believe America should stand for, I fully realize that my beliefs are not what the average citizen considers what this country should reflect.

So, you don't think America should be about freedom? Because it should. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF AMERICA!!!! That's why America was founded!

Are my thoughts wrong?

If the above is true then yes.

Thats up for the individual to decide, and in your case, you already have

No. No it;s not up to the individual. It's up to the individual when it comes to gay mairrage and abortion. This is about basic civil liberties that you and I as Americans are entitled to.

However, I do take offense to someone once again calling me 'ignorant', which seems to be a word people toss around a lot here if people don't agree with their views. I am not ignorant, I just have different views that you. Its a shame that you don't understand the difference.

What's a shame is that you seem to be missing the point of the destuction of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus predates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and America. It's the bottom brick of America. And now it's gone. How is that ok? It's not. There is no opinion on this issue. it is wrong. I don't care what party you allign yourself with. This is not America without the freedoms that make America what it is.

Either way, I plan to keep my visits here to a minimum, which I am sure wont hurt any feelings out there.

Probably not.

[Crowley]

yeah the idea that we're the liberal lemmings going with the pack is pretty ridiculous.

[Crowley]

american prisoners:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfOUAsBYsYg

r.i.p. habeas corpus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jGLgkn5HSo

king george:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[Crowley]

anyone else surprised that this is virtually silent in the mainstream "liberal media" ?

[Crowley]

so a friend of mine got an e-mail response from Senator Harry Reid, this is an excerpt:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding military commissions and the interrogation of detainees. I appreciate hearing from you.

On June 25, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, found the Administration's special military commissions for trying Guantanamo Bay detainees violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Further, the Court said that it is the responsibility of Congress to take the lead in creating a process that is consistent with existing law. The decision was a step in the right direction toward fixing a flawed military commission system that had failed to prosecute a single terrorist.

President Bush responded by asking us to ratify basically the same flawed and imbalanced military tribunal system that the Supreme Court had already found unconstitutional. At the same time, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a smarter, bipartisan bill that had the support of our nation's uniformed military professionals and such respected former leaders as General Colin Powell.

A handful of principled Republican Senators from the Armed Services Committee reached a compromise with the White House, and successfully negotiated removal of the worst elements of its extreme proposal. I admire the courage of these Senators, and I appreciate the improvements they managed to make in this bill. However, in the few days after that agreement was announced, the compromise grew much worse, and the bill before us began to look more and more like the administration bill those Senators fought so hard against.

I voted in support of several amendments that would have improved this bill, including amendments that would have replaced this bill with the bill approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee, provided for a five-year sunset, restored the right of judicial review, required congressional oversight of the CIA's secret detention program, and clarified that inhumane interrogation tactics prohibited by the Army Field manual could not be used on Americans or on others. Unfortunately these amendments were all defeated on party line votes, and the Military Commission Act, S. 3930, was passed on September 28, 2006, by a vote of 65-34.

It is a travesty that the masterminds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks have yet to be brought to justice. I believe the Senate Armed Services Committee bill would have provided the President with the tools he needs to finally bring to trial those individuals who are now in U.S. custody. Unfortunately, I fear the system Congress has just approved once again goes too far and will be struck down by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. If that happens, Congress will be back in this very same place, debating how to prosecute terrorists, and justice will be further delayed for the families of the 9/11 victims and the nation. Congress should get this right now.

I voted against this bill for several reasons. Among them is that it authorizes a vast expansion of the President's power to detain people - even U.S. citizens - indefinitely and without charge. No procedures for doing so are specified, no due process is provided, and no time limit on the detention is set. At the same time, the bill would generally deprive federal judges of the power to review the legality of many such detentions. This is true even in the case of a lawful permanent resident arrested and held in the United States, and even if that person happens to be completely innocent. This bill does not include the checks and balances that the Framers of our Constitution understood were so important.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID

United States Senator"

[Jeff Brady]

so a friend of mine got an e-mail response from Senator Harry Reid, this is an excerpt:

He's got the same last name as the shoe bomber. Obviously a terrorist.

[kingdom2000]

anyone else surprised that this is virtually silent in the mainstream "liberal media" ?

Nope. Explaining the issue is a bit to complicated for the 5 word sound bite that the media responds to. Its just not "sexy" enough. Oddly though, when someone gets around to abusing the power (not if, its only a matter of time) the press would be one of the first to be hit. Just has history has shown, the first thing you do is control the source of information so throw a scare into a few major reporters and the rest will fall in line.

Shoot it worked for Bush and the only thing he threatened the press with was loss of access and they lined up to the company line. Now a president (any, not saying just Bush cause I can't stop thinking into the wonky weird thing called the "future") can threaten the loss of everything.

But really, its all Clinton's fault.