Thread: So these are the types of people the supreme court want to turn loose on US courts?

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

... Can't right wingers survive without someone to hate?

j

Nope, all conservatives need to hate liberals (that is anyone who isn't as conservative as they are). They think all foreigners should hand over their oil before being shot. Oh and they hate puppies too, hate em!

See how dishonest and nonconstructive that kind of fraudulent generalization is? I could never actually prove that every single conservative hates puppies.

Originally Posted by Pudu

Nope, all conservatives need to hate liberals (that is anyone who isn't as conservative as they are). They think all foreigners should hand over their oil before being shot. Oh and they hate puppies too, hate em!

See how dishonest and nonconstructive that kind of fraudulent generalization is? I could never actually prove that every single conservative hates puppies.

If you will notice, I only spoke of liberal politicians and conservatives! Liberal and conservative being a mindset or way of thinking! I avoided using terms like democrats or republicans because I was speaking of a way of thinking and not a group of people!

Oh, by the way, I hate puppies!

Originally Posted by JMS

If you will notice, I only spoke of liberal politicians and conservatives! Liberal and conservative being a mindset or way of thinking! I avoided using terms like democrats or republicans because I was speaking of a way of thinking and not a group of people!

Oh, by the way, I hate puppies!

Right! That's what I meant too - a conservative mindset. Anyone who opts for a plain dark brown suit rather than pinstripes hates puppies. I also throw in anyone who like to conserve, for good measure you see. Most tree huggers loathe foreigners, because foreigners hate us for our oaks.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Sadly, this is not the case. Unless, the government reveals what it knows in open court, you will never know if there is evidence or not. Saying, "I have evidence that I can't show you" is simply a way of covering up your mistakes.

Ways and Means. If a wildly publicized trial were to take place in which it came out how someone was captured (and it would) we would then de facto lose that capability. Notice we can't trace Bin Laden's phone calls anymore? Exactly. We are still in conflict with the organization(s) the various detainees are members of. Iraqi regulars? not at Guantanamo. Guys captured on a "video set" and the remains of decapitated Iraqi townspeople? Yeah, maybe some of those are there. Since these individuals wish to be treated as EPWs (which strictly speaking they are not) it follows that releasing enemy forces during conflict with that particular enemy does not make sense, nor is it required by any convention or law of war. Keeping them is not the precedent. Treating them as EPW's is, and trying them as US civilians (which they mostly are not) would definitely be a precedent.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

"Full proof of innocence" ... what an odd thing for an American to say. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"?

As we all know, this applies to citizens accused of a crime, not prisoners of war.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Well, since everyone agrees that this "war" will last for a long time, I guess you can just kiss your constitutional rights goodbye. Isn't it impressive how easy it was to lose your liberty?

The sky is not falling, and don't believe that it will be going on *that* long. It is much quieter over there than you've been lead to believe, they are likely just waiting for "their" boy to be elected, so they can give him credit. I have friends who've just returned from several months who only had to do perhaps six hits to capture someone. When I left there earlier in the war, we were involved in sometimes two or three hits a DAY. Things are DEFINITELY getting better. You just won't hear about it yet for political reasons, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

The suspension of constitutional rights using the excuse of war and basic ignorance of what those rights were are the main reasons why the United States has already slipped into Fascism and why almost nobody seems to notice.

There is no constitutional right to go on an airplane without being searched (as much as I'd love to be able to still carry my straights in a carry on or perhaps a small pocket knife). Otherwise there's a lot of smoke and mirrors but no real loss of "rights". If anything, I think we've gotten a few of them back. I can't speak of individual districts however, where local jurisdictions get a little large for their breeches... it's a whole other thread but I have misgivings over the way the "drug war" is going. Otherwise as I've said before, the sky is not falling. Not yet anyway.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

No, you are not correct. Jose Padilla is a US citizen who was designated an enemy combattant and stripped of his constitutional rights. If it happened to him, it can happen to you.

One of the few ways to automatically lose citizenship in the United States is to take up arms against the United States. Another is to actually denounce citizenship. Jose Padilla did both, as I understand. A traitor is IMHO the worse thing one can be. It is right down there with child molestation, perhaps even worse than that, even. Jose Padilla is not a citizen by his own desires, and he is not only a terrorist (convicted) but a traitor. That's why the Iraqi soldiers captured early in the war (with the Ba'ath government) are now free, but Jose Padilla-is not.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Another factual error. I live in Italy but I'm from Chicago. As for Fascism, we hold sham elections where we elect representatives who vote for whatever their corporate donors want, we launch imperialistic wars, justified by lies, against the express will of the people. The news media are all owned by large corporations that censor the news ... don't get me started.

This statement tells me you don't really watch the news or even listen to the radio. Sham elections? where's your evidence? was it the thousands of illegal immigrants being brought in by bus in California to vote for the democrat candidate? Corporations owning the news-well, to a point. Imperialistic wars? show me some evidence of this one, also. I will agree with you on one point, however, and that is the whole truth seldom makes the news. Large corporations owning the news? how about the media outlets themselves are the large corporations.

I believe that we are being shown things in a certain light because of the elections, both the upcoming presidential election, as well as the past congressional elections. We are being made to believe the sky is falling and that one particular party is a group of unfeeling animals who seek to do nothing but murder, destroy the environment, and oppress. It is tragic, as that is not the case at all, and by demonizing Americans to make "their party" look worse than "our party" we are accomplishing nothing but making the rest of the world believe the lies, accusations, etc. apply to ALL Americans.
Of course, those seeking election for themselves or for their favorite candidates-could likely care less. It's about money and influence, after all.

Just my thoughts on it, anyway.

John P.

Originally Posted by Pudu

Right! That's what I meant too - a conservative mindset. Anyone who opts for a plain dark brown suit rather than pinstripes hates puppies. I also throw in anyone who like to conserve, for good measure you see. Most tree huggers loathe foreigners, because foreigners hate us for our oaks.

John P.

Originally Posted by Pudu

Right! That's what I meant too - a conservative mindset. Anyone who opts for a plain dark brown suit rather than pinstripes hates puppies. I also throw in anyone who like to conserve, for good measure you see. Most tree huggers loathe foreigners, because foreigners hate us for our oaks.

Right concept, wrong tree.

They hate us for our elms. Just look what the perfidious Dutch have done to them.

j

original topic

OPSEC

that is the rationale behind Gitmo's MO

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

original topic

OPSEC

that is the rationale behind Gitmo's MO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_security_(OPSEC)

OPSEC-probably right on that one.

Also, speaking of OPSEC
Shhhhhhhhhhhh....
Don't let the Dutch know we're onto them about the "Elm" incident....


John P.

I guess I'm just a simple guy.

If they are enemy combatants, shoot them.
If you happen to capture them, question them then shoot them. If they happen to be a citizen, question them, try them, then shoot them.

This goes for all non-citizens who happen to be caught in criminal acts against this country or its people, even if they happen to have illegaly made a home here.

My reasoning: You only get due process of the law if you have been living within the law excepting the incident in question. None of the above qualify.