Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Keep reading that post Kapedan until you get it through your thick skull. You come across as more idiotic and ignorant with every post you make here. BTW, you ain't no conservative. You haven't the slightest clue what the term means in a political context. Stop spamming this thread with your retarted offtopic posts. Go troll some other forum.
you know when shaolin and i agree we MUST be right ;)
Dale Gribble
quote:
Originally posted by Kapedan
The only difference is that Rush and Bill actually make sense.
So hows does the koolaid taste ?
shaolin_Z
EDIT: ^^ This will make it easier for you to understand Kapedan.
Kapedan: "Me like bashing heads."
King Ecnal
I wish the Supreme Court wasn't so god damn conservative...
who else can save us now???
venomX
quote:
Originally posted by King Ecnal
I wish the Supreme Court wasn't so god damn conservative...
who else can save us now???
Only the people can save the people my friend. If you're waiting for someone to save you, you just need look in the mirror, there's you savior ;)
King Ecnal
quote:
Originally posted by venomX
Only the people can save the people my friend. If you're waiting for someone to save you, you just need look in the mirror, there's you savior ;)
thanks... but who's going to save me when George Bush deems me a terrorist...lol...
I'm out of luck...
venomX
quote:
Originally posted by King Ecnal
thanks... but who's going to save me when George Bush deems me a terrorist...lol...
I'm out of luck...
Hehe well thats the thing right, nothing comes without sacrifice. Look back in history, whenever something had to be done, some people had to give up a lot in order to make those goals attainable. I know its a tough proposition, but that's how it goes. If more people knew about what was going on and took action before this laws came to existance you wouldnt have that problem :p
King Ecnal
quote:
Originally posted by venomX
Hehe well thats the thing right, nothing comes without sacrifice. Look back in history, whenever something had to be done, some people had to give up a lot in order to make those goals attainable. I know its a tough proposition, but that's how it goes. If more people knew about what was going on and took action before this laws came to existance you wouldnt have that problem :p
very true... but no one cares... we(the young people) can't even go out and vote...
I was very saddened to see very to LITTLE response when this went down last week...
but slowly people are discovering it, and all I can do is hope people get on the ball and realize how wrong this is...
Dale Gribble
quote:
Originally posted by Kapedan
Are any of you lefties in here concerned about your safety?
So tell me how Bush has made us safer?
TSA? oh yeah sure lets search blond girls,families and some old people
and that makes you feel safe? I spent the better part of friday at the Gainesville airport waiting for my wife and had a front row veiw of the TSA checking people. I stopped counting after it got to 7-1(female- male) of the persons they pulled outta line, they even pulled more families w/kids than single males.
Phone tapping? Well they did say they only are tapping people with contacts to KNOWN terrorist. The FBI would say otherwise after chasing down 10k's of false leads, again you sheep buy every word even when the facts say otherwise.
Then you have Bush's statement of "he was tried of swatting at flies(terrorist) when asked to show proof of any action on his part he couldn't. That was on cspan during C.Rice with the 9/11 commission.
IRAQ, oh boy were to start with that Fuk up. Everything they used to go to war has been proven false, and it wasn't all bad intel. They knew plenty of times what they were saying was false and would attack whoever tried to prove otherwise.Now after yrs of a "war of choice" we're worse of than before(safety).
Torture, how far down has this country has gone and yet we have the balls to tell the world we're the moral leaders.
So when are you going to signup with the armed forces? Or are you like your heroes who wouldn't go to war- RUSH,RUMMIE,DICK,BUSH,ect....
Chicken Hawks is a fitting term for cowards like them, so again when are you going to stand behind your heroes and sign up for a few tours of duty.
Ann C. has called Clinton lying about a BJ "treason", what about a president who lied/twisted the facts to go war?
Also don't call me a lefty as I'am more of a conservative than you think you are, your just another NEOCON.
oh yeah I forgot your just a kid who knows it all...... growup and be a man, sign up for a few tours of duty if your so scared. Whatever happened to "Home of the Brave".
You remind me of the poster "igloo" @ clubplanet.
____________________________________________________
So did you ever study HISTORY?
Patrick Henry once asked: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" Fortunately, Mr. Henry provided us with an answer: "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Do you understand what he was saying?
Ben Franklin once said that anyone who attempts to limit freedom in the name of security deserves neither. These freedoms are the things that make us so different from other countries. But freedom comes at a price. Part of that price is vulnerability.
Dale Gribble
Pro-due process is not pro-terrorism
Atsushi Wallace Tashima is a senior judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He was the first American of Japanese ancestry to sit on a federal appeals court after the Senate confirmed his nomination, by President Clinton, in 1995. He was also one of the 120,000 Japanese-Americans interned in concentration camps in the western United States during World War II. "So, if I stray somewhat today from the path that judges usually take in their public remarks," he said during a conference at Duke University last year, "it is because I believe that the voice of those who were wronged by their own government more than 60 years ago needs to be heard in the current debate on how the war against terrorism should be conducted."
Tashima went on to trace the failures of government to protect Americans and immigrants in World War II as now: "In this post-9/11 world, many of the themes played out in the World War II internment cases are being played out again. As much as it was 60 years ago, it is again up to the federal courts to protect the Constitution and the people's rights under the Constitution. For, if the courts fail, as the Japanese internment case has taught us, there is nowhere else to turn."
What happens when an elected Congress passes a law eliminating the courts from the picture? The consequences won't be immediately clear. History, in such cases, points to blights on the nation's values that still reverberate, as Tashima's words show. We can only hope that a judge of Tashima's stature will one day reflect back on these times from the perspective of another lesson learned. Right now, the law is again being perverted, as it was in the internment case, in the name of the war on terror.
On Oct. 17, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that allows CIA agents to torture prisoners, ends access to federal courts for individuals the president designates as "enemy combatants" and sets up tribunals that deny due process to defendants accused of terrorism. The new law also "legalizes" the CIA's secret prisons, allows indefinite imprisonment without charge and considers individuals in its control guilty until proven innocent. For legislation as sweeping in scorn for the Constitution and American values, you'd have to go back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, since repealed.
Successful, so far, the administration is now targeting other aspects of the Guantanamo aberration that still give prisoners room for legal maneuvering. The prisoners aren't allowed to challenge their detention in federal courts. But they still may challenge their designation as "enemy combatants." Some of those challenges have already led to releases. There's no telling who else, at Guantanamo, should not be there, unless inmates preserve their right to challenge their designation.
Now, the administration has asked a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. -- which has jurisdiction over the "enemy combatant" cases -- to change the rules: In those proceedings, defense lawyers and prisoners would be limited to just four face-to-face meetings in all. (There are no restrictions in place now, except those imposed by the remoteness of Guantanamo Bay.) Prisoners' mail from their lawyers would be censored. Conversations between lawyers and the prisoners would be monitored and censored if necessary. The military in Guantanamo claims that without those rules, the prisoners will hear news from the outside that will incite them to violence and pose a security risk in the prison camp; this, even though the prisoners are shackled, isolated and constantly monitored.
The rule change would be just another tightening of the screw, a different way to outfox the Supreme Court ruling giving inmates the right to challenge their designation. If the federal court agrees to it, Judge Tashima's warning will be reality: The courts themselves will have failed.
There is a security problem at Guantanamo Bay. It's inherent to the prison's existence: The danger it poses is to the rule of law. Gitmo, as a concentration camp, has unfortunately been taking care of itself.
Human Rights Watch Urges Support for the "Restoring the Constitution Act" and the "Habeus Corpus Restoration Act."
Letter to Representative Jerrold Nadler
March 8, 2007
Rep. Jerrold Nadler
2334 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Nadler:
We commend you for your leadership in introducing two important pieces of legislation today—the “Habeas Restoration Act of 2007” and the “Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007”—which would together undo the worst aspects of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and help restore America’s reputation as a leading proponent of human rights and the rule of law.
As you are well aware, the Military Commissions Act was rushed through Congress in the last session of 2006 with inadequate or no hearings on many of its key provisions. Of primary concern, the act bars detainees in military custody from challenging the legality of their detention through the writ of habeas corpus, an age-old right that dates back to 13th century England and establishes the principle that even kings are bound by the rule of law.
Both the “Habeas Restoration Act” and the “Restoring the Constitution Act” reinstate this ancient right, making sure that the president cannot simply place any non-citizen in military custody on his say-so, without any independent review of the decision to detain. We now know that detainees in Guantanamo Bay were arrested from 14 countries around the world, often sold to the United States by bounty hunters. In many instances, suspects were essentially indistinguishable from other civilians, making the possibility of mistake high. In such a situation, it is critical, if not incumbent, on the United States to ensure there is an independent and credible review of the decision to detain. The legislation introduced today would do just that.
The “Restoring the Constitution Act” would also undo other troubling provisions of the Military Commissions Act. Among these important corrections are the adoption of a sensible definition of combatant and a prohibition on the use of any evidence obtained through coercion. Also, both pieces of legislation restore the ability of litigants to raise violations of US international obligations under the Geneva Conventions in a court of law.
We urge the House of Representatives to act quickly to enact both the “Habeas Restoration Act” and the “Restoring the Constitution Act”—legislation that would go a long way toward restoring the moral authority and credibility of the United States around the world.
Thank you again for your leadership on this issue.
