Bush Caught In A Major Lie

[dotcoma]

THE GUY THAT WAS RUNNING THE PLACE QUIT OVER IT! YOU ARE A NAY-SAYER and nothing more. It has become quite apparent. THE TORTURE IS ADMITTED!

[Impenitent]

which guy?

[dotcoma]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

and so he is going to be treated as the other enemy combatants... good...

but there are still lawyers working on his behalf, how would you have known this information if there weren't?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Your back-paddling now. And he's no combatant. He's a citizen of the US. If he's guilty, put him on trial as per the constitution. And I said he's had no access to lawyers (according to AP). If someone has lawyers "working on their behalf" it is probably as a result of family members seeing as HE'S HAD NO ACCESS TO Lawyers (as per AP). You asked us to name people: we did. Your responses have nothing if anything to do with facts or reality of what we've been talking about. Most of the your responses have nothing to do with the subject at hand. But I'm learning so much form you!. If you get backed into a corner with a question based on facts JUST ANSWER WITH UNRELATED INFO!!!

[dotcoma]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/s...sp?story=499002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/stor...1003351,00.html

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

and so he is going to be treated as the other enemy combatants... good...

but there are still lawyers working on his behalf, how would you have known this information if there weren't?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Your back-paddling now. And he's no combatant. He's a citizen of the US. If he's guilty, put him on trial as per the constitution. And I said he's had no access to lawyers (according to AP). If someone has lawyers "working on their behalf" it is probably as a result of family members seeing as HE'S HAD NO ACCESS TO Lawyers (as per AP). You asked us to name people: we did. Your responses have nothing if anything to do with facts or reality of what we've been talking about. Most of the your responses have nothing to do with the subject at hand. But I'm learning so much form you!. If you get backed into a corner with a question based on facts JUST ANSWER WITH UNRELATED INFO!!!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

no, he is an enemy combatant, not a criminal... not back peddling at all...

he did have access to lawyers, according to CNN

you didn't name one person arrested under the patriot act who had his rights taken away because of the patriot act... you presented people who were arrested for other crimes and one who was an enemy combatant

unrelated? no, you are the one with the unrelated info...

you have not named anyone arrested under the patriot act or anyone who had his rights taken away because of the patriot act... you cannot, they do not exist

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/s...sp?story=499002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/stor...1003351,00.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

what is this? unfounded allegations?

:rolleyes: the opinions of "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch" are not the arbiters of international treaties...


if there was evidence of such atrocities there'd be pictures, film, video, recording, or unimpeachable testimony... not simply the whining lies from out of power left wing socialist front groups...

[Mia]

Do I misunderstand or does the Patriot Act widen powers to deal with enemy combatants and widen the definition of who can be treated as an enemy combatant? I don't think it's an either/or. Correct me where I am wrong.

[Zeebadee]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
he had and has lawyers... but he is an enemy combatant, not a criminal... :rolleyes: but I bet you want lawyers for every enemy combatant in cuba too<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

And you know this how? Because it was in all the papers? We can just do away with the Justice system, because the media will tell us which people are guilty I guess. What does Padilla have to say in his own defense? Can't tell me, can you? He hasn't been allowed to say anything publicly, and hasn't even had access to his "lawyers" for almost two years now.

And going to the extreme with "lawyers for every enemy combatant in Cuba" is an asinine statement, since there aren't currently any American citizens there, at least none that we know about. Of course with the Bush policy of secret arrests and trials, anything is possible.

If you are willing to allow the suspension of the Bill of Rights for one of our citizens, there will eventually be someone equally willing to suspend those rights for you.

[Mia]

Patriot Act 2: An Overview

“An American citizen suspected of being part of a terrorist conspiracy could be held by investigators without anyone being notified. He could simply disappear.”

New York Times Magazine
February 23, 2003


The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation – until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201).

Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312).

The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129).

Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible. (sec. 103).

Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202).

The reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism would be expanded – individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure (secs. 428, 428).

Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it (sec. 321, 322).

Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings (secs. 503, 504).

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFre...?ID=12234&c=206

[gecko]

one day mia you will grow up and realize that the more security you want the less freedom you get

and no the current system is not perfect

but then what IS?

[Zeebadee]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
one day mia you will grow up and realize that the more security you want the less freedom you get

and no the current system is not perfect

but then what IS?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You are exactly right on this one. But you seem to believe that you are somehow more secure now. I don't. You can trade your freedom for a nice sense of security if you want, but I'll take the risks of a free and open society any day.

"They that can give away essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

[gecko]

its amazing how quotes are supposed to make things true

you know what? what freedoms have you actually lost?

if i want a gun i can own one

if i want to protest i can

the only time it might appear that your freedoms arent being respected is if you are breaking the law

as for privacy? well who cares what you are doing?

the people getting surveyed (serveilled?) are usually trashy people to begin with
drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and others

[Mia]

I see. Insults are used to fill space meant for useful information or argument.

We have enough security. It wasn't used properly to prevent 9/11.

"Patriot Act 2 Offers A False Solution, a Less Safe Nation

Our system’s checks and balances not only ensure that the government does not violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, they also help maintain the legitimacy of law enforcement. Actions viewed as arbitrary, capricious or improper sow the seeds of mistrust among communities that might otherwise cooperate with authorities. Limits also force the government to use their limited resources more wisely – that is, pursuing real criminals using proven investigative techniques.

The bitter irony is that the Patriot Act 2 could make our nation more vulnerable to terrorism, a view held by many experts:

As Coleen Rowley – the FBI special agent named by Time Magazine as a person of the year for blowing the whistle on pre 9/11 intelligence failures – observed in a letter to Director Robert Mueller:

The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. . . . [A]fter 9-11, headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism.[2]

In late 2001 senior intelligence specialists wrote that the use of racial profiling and other investigative techniques that intrude on civil liberties could undermine security by distracting security officials from less clumsy and more reliable forms of individual suspicion.[3]

[Zeebadee]

"...what freedoms have you actually lost?"

Ok, I see where you're coming from now. It won't be an issue for you until you actually lose some of your own rights. And since it's only (usually) " trashy people", "drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and others" that are being targeted, it's not really anything to worry about. Good thinking!

[rmnunez]

Zee, you think the Patriot Act is really aimed at curtailing the rights of "trashy people" like drug dealers or illegal immigrants?

[Mia]

No, he doesn't. The genious Gecko feels that only "trashy" people are the sort that will get monitored for anything.

[Zeebadee]

No, rmnunez, I think the Patriot Act is a very serious threat against the Constitution. While the current administration may have only the most innocent intents and purposes in mind, the precedents being set are going to cost every citizen dearly in the future. We will pay many times over for the "security" that's being provided to us.

[gecko]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
I see. Insults are used to fill space meant for useful information or argument.

We have enough security. It wasn't used properly to prevent 9/11.

"Patriot Act 2 Offers A False Solution, a Less Safe Nation

Our system’s checks and balances not only ensure that the government does not violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, they also help maintain the legitimacy of law enforcement. Actions viewed as arbitrary, capricious or improper sow the seeds of mistrust among communities that might otherwise cooperate with authorities. Limits also force the government to use their limited resources more wisely – that is, pursuing real criminals using proven investigative techniques.

The bitter irony is that the Patriot Act 2 could make our nation more vulnerable to terrorism, a view held by many experts:

As Coleen Rowley – the FBI special agent named by Time Magazine as a person of the year for blowing the whistle on pre 9/11 intelligence failures – observed in a letter to Director Robert Mueller:

The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. . . . [A]fter 9-11, headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism.[2]

In late 2001 senior intelligence specialists wrote that the use of racial profiling and other investigative techniques that intrude on civil liberties could undermine security by distracting security officials from less clumsy and more reliable forms of individual suspicion.[3]<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

blahb blah blah

you bring up how security failed to prevent 9/11
\im glad you brought this up
people like you only see when the sytem fails you dont relize how many things (attacks/terrosits/whatever) ARE stopped by our "flawed" security

do you wear seatbelts? no one notices seatbelts until that one time they are in a crash and it saves their lives

or your roof? when was the last time you said, im glad i have a roof!
you are so used to being protected you dont know what it would be like without it

[rmnunez]

I don't think "serious threats" to the constitution can survive for long in the US. If a law impinges on the constitution it can be challenged. Public officers are obligated to question and examine the costitutionality of laws applied and all courts have the jurisdiction and must hear facial challenges to a law's constitutionality. In cases where there is some sort of unconstitutional application of laws through state (government) action, courts hear the claims. It could be that conservative judicial interpretations tend to find constitutionality in the Patriot Act and we can disagree over how appropriate we find their determinations. I think the Act is new, it does restrict rights, but the focus is foreigners. Although there are constitutional rights guaranteed without regard to citizenship in the US, it is also true some of these rights are constitutionally more limited to non-nationals (this is not something new the Patriot Act introduces). The issue of applicability to US citizens has been the first element of the Act scrutinized by the courts in the US. I'd anticipate some review of the degree to which non-citizen's rights are eroded too.

[Zeebadee]

I disagree. The camel will get it's nose into the tent by starting with someone low and evil enough not to cause a public stir. Padilla fits the bill perfectly. He's now been locked up for almost two years without any evidence at all being presented, solely because one unelected official has declared him to be a danger to the country. This makes no sense to me. With the entire U. S. intelligence and military communities out looking for Al Qaeda members, a common street hood from Chicago can just fly to the middle east and have high level meetings with them? Then this guy is going to come back here and build a dirty nuclear bomb? I think the real purpose of the Padilla case is to legitimize the suspension of Constitutional rights to U.S. citizens. When the public gets used to people being held as Padilla is, the definition of "combatant" will be expanded to include others the government finds objectionable. Protest demonstrations could become conduct detrimental to the public good, civil disobediance could be construed as actions against the state. My problem isn't with what the Patriot Act is now, but what it will become in the future. Politicians have always, unceasingly worked to increase their power. The power to declare someone a combatant, without presenting any shred of evidence is just too much to give to anyone. Power corrupts....