B. Max Posted October 21, 2006 Report Share Posted October 21, 2006 What would you call it. An early christmas present. First: fuck you. Second: it was what it was on its face. A terrorist attack. Not an invasion. Certainly not a rebellion. It was an invasion by terrorists who carried out an attack, not a FU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted October 21, 2006 Report Share Posted October 21, 2006 B. Max, why don't you regale us once more with your thoughts on Ghandi? Why are you a bit slow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 21, 2006 Report Share Posted October 21, 2006 It was an invasion by terrorists who carried out an attack, not a FU.Terrorists are criminals not an invading army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted October 21, 2006 Report Share Posted October 21, 2006 It was an invasion by terrorists who carried out an attack, not a FU.Terrorists are criminals not an invading army. Where does it say it has to be an army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 21, 2006 Report Share Posted October 21, 2006 Where does it say it has to be an army.Terrorists picked up in other countries are not invaders. People who happen to changing plans in US airports are not invaders. I find it extremely ironic that so many supporters of a war to 'spread democracy and human rights' are so willing to give up those rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted October 21, 2006 Report Share Posted October 21, 2006 Where does it say it has to be an army.Terrorists picked up in other countries are not invaders. People who happen to changing plans in US airports are not invaders. I find it extremely ironic that so many supporters of a war to 'spread democracy and human rights' are so willing to give up those rights. 911 was not another country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 22, 2006 Report Share Posted October 22, 2006 It was an invasion by terrorists who carried out an attack, not a FU.Terrorists are criminals not an invading army. Where does it say it has to be an army. Who says it is an invasion?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Citizen Posted October 24, 2006 Report Share Posted October 24, 2006 As an American, I wish to thank the folks here who are OUTRAGED at what Bush has done... To the mind of many Americans who are FED UP with him and his corrupt regime, an "enemy combatant" can mean anybody who disagrees with him. As far as the Supreme Court, why should they pick this particular topic to stop him on? They have sided with him on things just as perverse... http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4508611 THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!! This was done in order to make sure the Border Patrol agents are afraid to do their jobs on the MEXICAN border. The fence will NOT be built...it is all a big FARCE!!! But I digress...This is the darkest day in American history. We are FED UP with the threat of terror everytime we turn around. There are lots of Americans who don't buy the story about 9-11 that the government is putting out anyway. The election in 2 weeks will be interesting. The Democrats will sweep...but this is NOT a good thing. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the 2 parties at all. Stay tuned. And keep your eyes and ears open, because like it or not, we are going to merge with your country...Us AND Mexico. We must not forget about them...You may not think much about them, but we ARE BEING INVADED DOWN HERE!!! And if one more person accuses me of being a racist, I will SCREAM!!! I don't care WHAT COLOR a person is, as long as he is LEGAL!!! As far as the "habeas corpus" fisaco...have you seen the movie "V for Vendetta"? Thanks for listening... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted October 24, 2006 Report Share Posted October 24, 2006 There is NO DIFFERENCE between the 2 parties at all. I think that both parties see the hispanics as the next power base. Just as 90% of the blacks vote democratic, nobody wants to piss the hispanics off it seems. Both parties dream of 90% of the hispanic vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 I hate to be a scare-monger, and I ususally don't take such positions, but this legislation is terrifying...especially if you are of Middle-Eastern ancestry and a citizen of ANY country other than the US (and from what others here are saying the UK, because they've already used their "international pressure" when it matters BEFORE their citizens disappear into a now apparently fully approved US torture / non-trial facility).FTA I've reviewed the statute briefly, and some of the articles that were written about it's passing back in October, and it's pretty clear to me that the intent of this legislation is to properly define the rights of the illegal combatants held in Gitmo who aren't already covered by the Geneva Conventions. Ironically, the intent appears to be to bring their status in line with what protections the Geneva Conventions do and do not provide for their legal counterparts, which is what Bushco's political opponents have been demanding since the camp began taking prisoners. This act would treat all American combat prisoners the same as far as habeous corpus is concerned, be they held under the Geneva Conventions or no. The chief problem with the legislation at this point appears to be that the definition of "enemy combatant" is too broad in it's scope. It should be narrowed by language indicating that the individual was taken into custody in the course of taking up arms against the US, and perhaps narrowed further to indicate the combatant was taken outside of US territory. (Of course, that would preclude holding enemy illegal combatants arrested during an invasion of the US, but that's a pretty far-fetched scenario. Nearly impossible, really.) The current language appears to have been written in such a way as to allow the arrest of sleeper agents within the US, and I agree that this is too broad of a definition for what an enemy combatant is. New, seperate legislation should be created and debated for dealing with enemy agents acting within the US. Or, they could just rely on criminal laws already in place. Despite what has been written elsewhere, the statute clearly states that American citizens can't have their habeous corpus rights denied by the provisions of the Act. The Act only applies to non-citizens held by the US who have been defined as enemy combatants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted November 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 The Act only applies to non-citizens held by the US who have been defined as enemy combatants. And hence the title I used for the thread. Again, Brits will be protected and we will not. Thanks for the erudite review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 Benjamin Franklin is spinning in his grave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 The Act only applies to non-citizens held by the US who have been defined as enemy combatants. And hence the title I used for the thread. Again, Brits will be protected and we will not. Thanks for the erudite review. Seems to be much to do about nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcqueen625 Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 Where the hell does the bill say someone won't get a trial? I do believe these anti-US rants make it up as they go along, because if they sprout anti-US hate long and loud enough that paoepl should just believe it. If it wern't for the US, many Canadians would not be working, and paying taxes so that tehy can spout their hate. Get a life Higgley, you seem to know nothing about the law, other than what the ACLU tells you. If I were you I would take anything this bunch of bleeding hearts say with a grain of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted December 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 Where the hell does the bill say someone won't get a trial? I do believe these anti-US rants make it up as they go along, because if they sprout anti-US hate long and loud enough that paoepl should just believe it. If it wern't for the US, many Canadians would not be working, and paying taxes so that tehy can spout their hate. Get a life Higgley, you seem to know nothing about the law, other than what the ACLU tells you. If I were you I would take anything this bunch of bleeding hearts say with a grain of salt. What a poor attempt to shut down debate. Personal attacks and characterizations. The usual snow job from the right wing. I know enough about the law to understand what this means to Canadians and how odd it is that Brits do not suffer the same discrimination. You on the other hand.... As for you geoffrey, 'Habeas Corpus' is the right to force the government to give you a trial. Without it, you can be locked up indefinitely. Is that simple enough for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomstick Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Because people criticize the actions of the American government doesn't make them anit-American. In case you haven't noticed lately, those very actions have largely contributed to the decline of global security. I'd like for you to explain to me how the United States is responsible for maintaining for so many of us the system we enjoy here in Canada. We have what we have because of our own resolve... dwindling as it may appear to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 I'd like for you to explain to me how the United States is responsible for maintaining for so many of us the system we enjoy here in Canada. Who would you like to explain this to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted December 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 I was going to nominate someone, but then I thought, why? If they're not going to give us the same rights they give themselves, then what kind of bloody friends are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.