Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Criminals in the White House


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Criminals in the White House Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 12:39:58 PM   
MisterBeast


Posts: 142
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ates in an environment that includes the British press, as rabid a pack as have ever existed on the planet, often owned b
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MisterBeast

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MisterBeast
I am getting really damn tired of Liberal Democrats trying to make everything Republicans fault just like how Adolph Hitler made everything all about the Jew's.

And yet another person person invokes Godwin.

BTW do you also decry Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson and all of FoxNews when they try and make everything the Democrats fault? Your posting history doesn't seem to show that.


Well lets roll with it shall we?
<snip non sequitur>

Changing the subject is not an answer. When precisely do you denounce the afore named individuals for blaming the Democrats for everything?


Can't respond to what I said, well then...
YOU FAIL!!!
I dont have to denoucne them for anything. Nor do I intend to because even though I don't agree with everything they do or say, I do think they have given a lot of credit where credit is due.

And on that note, none of them have ever defaced a statue that is dedicated to men and women of the service, Code Pink has though. You rady to step up and tell us how wrong Sheehan and her pink clad thugs are?


_____________________________

"I’ve seen what is coming, I put myself inside his head, I’ve become the thing we fear the most, I’ve become capable of becoming the horror that we know we can become only in our heart of darkness, my gift my curse."

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 12:42:10 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MisterBeast

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Again with the comparitive examples.This time you throw in a little Adolph Hitler, arguably the most despised man of the late 20'century with some Democratic voices...way to keep it real...is this what You refer to as "fair and balanced"...when one has no real point a little cheap theatrics  works quite well ,does it not!


So then explain to me then how they are really the champions of freedom and liberty and the American way of life, and not a bunch of people who are after similar goal of instituting thier ideology and forcing it on the rest of us?

The reason I referenced what I did is the 2nd ammendment is there to protect the first. With out the right to keep and bear arms the right of free speech and freedom of the press can not be sustained. Dont belive me, try telling some one with a gun to shut up some time.

Or as Lennin put it:
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

 Weren't aware we were in a gun-control thread..oh well... I  still say to you ,comparing the goals of the Democrats to Nazi's makes you a less than realistic commentator on the whole issue....you are the one who has lost all objectivity when engaging in such a diatribe!!!

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to MisterBeast)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 12:42:11 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MisterBeast

So then explain to me then how they are really the champions of freedom and liberty and the American way of life, and not a bunch of people who are after similar goal of instituting thier ideology and forcing it on the rest of us?



.....maybe you're right. Perhaps Democrats have an ideological agenda and, if in power, would try to change laws to preserve that agenda. Now, how is that any different from Republicans? Different agenda, same way of preserving it.
All politicians have such an agenda. It's ideally the platform they stood on to get elected. Essentially, all you've done is prove that one tribe of politicians are, well, politicians. By not pointing out how the remaining tribe are also politicians all you do is come across as an ideologue. Devoted not to truth, but to partisanship.

(in reply to MisterBeast)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 12:43:13 PM   
ModeratorEleven


Posts: 2007
Joined: 8/14/2005
Status: offline
Ok folks, please settle down.

XI



_____________________________

This mod goes to eleven.

(in reply to MisterBeast)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 12:54:24 PM   
MisterBeast


Posts: 142
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MisterBeast

So then explain to me then how they are really the champions of freedom and liberty and the American way of life, and not a bunch of people who are after similar goal of instituting thier ideology and forcing it on the rest of us?



Dont get me wrong here, I can point out plenty of places where Republicans have gone wrong, but I am less apt to do so in a forum like this because of all the bashing that takes place. I am registered as a republican, but I would call myself a "Libertairian Conservative" I want the government to leave us alone to live our lives and quit regulating everything.

Right now as I see it the greatest threat to that freedom comes from the DNC.

For that matter, I really don't like John McCain, a lot of the things he has done and proposed really piss me off. Actually the same can be said for George Bush, I don't like a lot of the things he has done, or the way he has handled many things, I think he is a mediocre leader at best. But at the same time, I don't think he is a bad guy, or a criminal for that matter, I do however think there are people out there who could do a much better job than he has.

.....maybe you're right. Perhaps Democrats have an ideological agenda and, if in power, would try to change laws to preserve that agenda. Now, how is that any different from Republicans? Different agenda, same way of preserving it.
All politicians have such an agenda. It's ideally the platform they stood on to get elected. Essentially, all you've done is prove that one tribe of politicians are, well, politicians. By not pointing out how the remaining tribe are also politicians all you do is come across as an ideologue. Devoted not to truth, but to partisanship.


_____________________________

"I’ve seen what is coming, I put myself inside his head, I’ve become the thing we fear the most, I’ve become capable of becoming the horror that we know we can become only in our heart of darkness, my gift my curse."

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 12:59:07 PM   
MisterBeast


Posts: 142
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Weren't aware we were in a gun-control thread..oh well... I  still say to you ,comparing the goals of the Democrats to Nazi's makes you a less than realistic commentator on the whole issue....you are the one who has lost all objectivity when engaging in such a diatribe!!!


It has nothing to do with the gun control, it has to do with the MENTALITY of the people who are after the power.

I never said the end goal was the same, I said they wanted the power, and they wanted to institute their own Ideology, the Idology of the Democrats and that of Hitler are two very different things. The mentality however is lock step, they feel as though they are the enlightened few who get to dictate to we the people how we should be living our lives, really look how they seek to regulate everything.

So once again, step up and show me the difference in the mentality. I can tell you right now that you cant't because there is none!


_____________________________

"I’ve seen what is coming, I put myself inside his head, I’ve become the thing we fear the most, I’ve become capable of becoming the horror that we know we can become only in our heart of darkness, my gift my curse."

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 1:14:08 PM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline
Yup. We Democrats have an agenda alright! Want to hear how it offically starts off? Well, it's like this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 
After that, there's a bunch of guy's names... and then we get into the real meat of the "agenda." By contrast, the Republicans have gutted the basic right of Hebeas Corpus. (the right to confront charges against you, and to confront your accusers) The concept behind this was first codified in the Magna Carta, and the idea of it goes back about 1200 years.) It seems the GOP also has an agenda... one that involves chucking people into prison without charge, for an indefinite period of time, and to torture them. They also seem to think that the government has every right to tap your phone, read your email, and keep records on everyone so they can be used against them.

So much for the "securing the blessings of liberty", eh?

(in reply to MisterBeast)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 1:23:42 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Yup. We Democrats have an agenda alright! Want to hear how it offically starts off? Well, it's like this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 
After that, there's a bunch of guy's names... and then we get into the real meat of the "agenda." By contrast, the Republicans have gutted the basic right of Hebeas Corpus. (the right to confront charges against you, and to confront your accusers) The concept behind this was first codified in the Magna Carta, and the idea of it goes back about 1200 years.) It seems the GOP also has an agenda... one that involves chucking people into prison without charge, for an indefinite period of time, and to torture them. They also seem to think that the government has every right to tap your phone, read your email, and keep records on everyone so they can be used against them.

So much for the "securing the blessings of liberty", eh?


Very nice speech... can you show me anywhere in US history that habeas corpus was extended to military detainees during the war?  Or where congress gave jurisdiction over military detainees to the civilian courts?  However, now that we are extending this right to military detainees, we must also expect the soldiers in the field to preserve evidence, secure the "crime" scene, keep a detailed chain of custody on such evidence, interview witnesses and provide access to all of this to the detainee and their counsel.  Sounds brilliant.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 3:08:52 PM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline
Ah, but these aren't "POW's" are they? No, they're "Enemy Combatants." (One of the 1984-isims that the Bush regime instituted, so they could get around having to treat them under the Geneva Conventions, yet NOT have them treated as civillian criminals, in court.) Typical of the GOP at this stage of their assault on the Constitution.

They wanted these people in a legal no man's land, so they could do as they wished. Tryanny in it's purest form: make sure your enemy is not treated with fairness or justice, or even as a human being. Are you really surprised that the Bush administration was found, just this week, of having incarcerated a 14 year old?!

Basic, inalienable human rights... it's not just a good idea, it's the fucking law. (but considering your background... your "philosophy" of shit pulp novels, I'm not surprised that you fail basic civics.)

Keep waving that flag, Thad! You're just making my point for me.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 3:29:35 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
Be that as it may,regardless of how you feel about the platform of the Democratic party ,you still insist on comparing them to the worst collection of thugs drug-addicts and the criminally insane ever to hold the reins of power in an industrialised nation...IMO that qualifies you as a charter member of the fringe element....those that See the other side of the aisle as all- encompassing evil happen to scare the sit out of me...much like yourself they do not hold reasonable views as they scream and rant about the unreasonableness of what they don't agree with...beware the zealot of any political stripe
this is a reply to masterbeast and obviously not bipolarber

< Message edited by slvemike4u -- 7/16/2008 3:46:23 PM >


_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 3:32:05 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
For some odd reason I seem to remember a big ole debate in Congress that negotiated the terms and conditions under which the detainees (non-uniformed combatants) were to be dealt with... part of which was military tribunal.  Again, I simply ask for a single example of habeas corpus being applied to any detainee or prisoner of war in a civilian court while the conflict/war was still going on? There must be some precedent for a court taking it upon itself to claim jurisdiction, even after congress has set who had that jurisdiction?  I seem to remember that power lying with congress, not the courts.

As to your other claim... I posted links and text from the ICRC, that show what parts of the Geneva convention applies to those "alleged" "terrorists", earlier in this topic.

Now finally to the icing on the cake...
quote:


Basic, inalienable human rights... it's not just a good idea, it's the fucking law. (but considering your background... your "philosophy" of shit pulp novels, I'm not surprised that you fail basic civics.)

Keep waving that flag, Thad! You're just making my point for me.


If discussing the particulars of a topic, and pointing out where somebody disagrees, and providing links to why somebody believes that point, is to much to ask... that you need to resort to personal attacks?  If your example is what it is to be civil, then hell I would prefer to be a barbarian.  Of course, please continue to allow me to prove your point. 

Patrioticly waving that grand ole flag for liberty,
Thadius

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 3:35:31 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline
quote:

Ah, but these aren't "POW's" are they? No, they're "Enemy Combatants." (One of the 1984-isims that the Bush regime instituted, so they could get around having to treat them under the Geneva Conventions, yet NOT have them treated as civillian criminals, in court.) Typical of the GOP at this stage of their assault on the Constitution.


No Bipolar, they are UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.   The term "unlawful enemy combatants" is not something invented by the Bush administration.  The term was used in 1942 in the Supreme Court decision Ex Parte Quirin.  The case involved the legality of military tribunals trying German military saboteurs.  It was upheld.  So again, you are completely wrong in your assumption that all of this was invented by the Republicans.  In 1942 who was the party in charge?  Hmm, I seem to recall it was the Democrats. 

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 3:50:39 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
Let me help you there slaveboy,yes i think his name was Roosevelt,and yes he was a Democrat...and if I recall that case dealt with enemy combatants infiltrated on the shores of this country to blow shit up....in other words spy's and saboteurs...apples and oranges do not make good analogies

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 4:10:11 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
Guess the Supreme Court needs you to set them straight that Quirin wasn't about enemy combatants in general, but only about saboteurs...


quote:

  …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.


< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 7/16/2008 4:11:10 PM >

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 4:26:16 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
Edited to add **FAST REPLY**

That ruling applied to both lawful and unlawful combatants, it still agreed that militarty tribunals (trials) were the place for both to be handled.  Congress even passed a couple of laws putting that jurisdiction in the hands of a military court...  While I am not sure about how feel with their loose wording about acceptable treatment and interrogation techniques, they clearly have the power (granted by the Constitution) to set jurisdiction for various courts.

quote:

The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.


How else would you describe a person setting up IEDs, passing on troop movements to ambush groups, or those attempting to assist or carry out suicide bombings on the civilians and military?


P.S. Thanks for the quote Alumbrado.

< Message edited by Thadius -- 7/16/2008 4:27:56 PM >


_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 9:03:28 PM   
MisterBeast


Posts: 142
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

the "securing the blessings of liberty", eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Yup. We Democrats have an agenda alright! Want to hear how it offically starts off? Well, it's like this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 
After that, there's a bunch of guy's names... and then we get into the real meat of the "agenda." By contrast, the Republicans have gutted the basic right of Hebeas Corpus. (the right to confront charges against you, and to confront your accusers) The concept behind this was first codified in the Magna Carta, and the idea of it goes back about 1200 years.) It seems the GOP also has an agenda... one that involves chucking people into prison without charge, for an indefinite period of time, and to torture them. They also seem to think that the government has every right to tap your phone, read your email, and keep records on everyone so they can be used against them.

So much for the "securing the blessings of liberty", eh?


So then why is it that the guy you all put on the ballot sounds more like Karl Marx than James Maddison and Thomas Jefferson?

As for the people who we have in those "secret prizons" whe are being denied thier "rights" They are soilders of the enemy, An enemy that does not wear a uniform, that refuses to face our troops on the battle field, but instead use cowardly tactics involving IED's and fear mongering in a global attempt to destroy those rights that we hold so dear and replace them with Sharia law.

I really don't think these ass hats deserve the protections of our Constitution or of the Geneve Convention, because they refuse to live by either, until they are captured that is.

Quite frankly when it comes to things like water boarding, that is nothing compared to what happens to our people when they are captured, Imagine what that must be like to be foreced down on the floor, with your feet and hands bound with wire ties, a sack over your head, surrounded by figures dressed all in black who have just tortured you for days, who as they scream Allah Ackbar (god is great) plunge a knife repetitively into your neck to saw your head off.

This has happened many many times through the course of this conflict, and I have yet to see Democrats come out to condem it, I have however seen Democrats call our troops baby killers, I have seen Democrats show up to protest at the funerals of the fallen who have died at the hands of these very same people who did the hacking to spew hate speech at the family of the deceased.

And before you go lecturing me about what happened at Abu Graib, what happened there was not right, but it was no worse than anything that happens at a high school on any given day in America.

It is the Democrats who are running around throwing pity parties and suing people every time a Koran gets tossed in a shitter,  but where is thier outrage at the suicide bomber who lets his bomb rip through a crowd of innocent civilians, where is the outrage for the car bomber who maims a nineteen year old soilder for the rest of his life.

None of that involves protecting the Constitution, in fact, I have seen Democrats in my day do everything in thier power to undermine the 2nd ammendment which is in my oppinion the most nessecary one we have, followed very closely by the freedom of speech. Yet we have had bill after bill, and law after law that has been designed to undermine this right, when the facts clearly show that gun control does not work.

At the same time we have seen a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) Take the military, and slice dice disband and defund it so terribly bad along with our intelegence community that it left the door wide open for 9/11.

So where in all this are the Democrats protecting my rights? Is it through insisting that because I own my own company that I deserve to pay higher taxes? Or wait, is it through trying to take away my ability to defend myself. You know that does you so much good, like in england where if some one breaks into your home you have to leave. What a bunch of crap.


_____________________________

"I’ve seen what is coming, I put myself inside his head, I’ve become the thing we fear the most, I’ve become capable of becoming the horror that we know we can become only in our heart of darkness, my gift my curse."

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 9:12:02 PM   
MisterBeast


Posts: 142
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Be that as it may,regardless of how you feel about the platform of the Democratic party ,you still insist on comparing them to the worst collection of thugs drug-addicts and the criminally insane ever to hold the reins of power in an industrialised nation...IMO that qualifies you as a charter member of the fringe element....those that See the other side of the aisle as all- encompassing evil happen to scare the sit out of me...much like yourself they do not hold reasonable views as they scream and rant about the unreasonableness of what they don't agree with...beware the zealot of any political stripe
this is a reply to masterbeast and obviously not bipolarber


Yes, I do make that comparison, what is really scary is that if you read Mein Kampf he talks a great deal about how everyone was too stupid to understand his art, how he was the enlightened one, and no one else got it, but I also think there was somthing in there about a Jew holding him down.

Hitler in one respect was brilliant, he understood that if you can collectively get people to hate another group, you can unite that group of people around your cause. I have seen the same tactic employed by Democrats with all of these "Drain the Republican swamp" speeches and what not in the last couple of years.

By the way, the last year Republicans controlled the house and senate, I made 128,500.00, the first year the Democrats were in power I made 41,000.00. So I think I can also say they arent good for the Economy.

And I am by no means a Zellot, get me in a group of Republicans, and I will be more than happy to point out to them where we are going wrong. I just don't gripe about it to the public at large.


_____________________________

"I’ve seen what is coming, I put myself inside his head, I’ve become the thing we fear the most, I’ve become capable of becoming the horror that we know we can become only in our heart of darkness, my gift my curse."

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/16/2008 9:51:35 PM   
DomAviator


Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Guess the Supreme Court needs you to set them straight that Quirin wasn't about enemy combatants in general, but only about saboteurs...


quote:

  …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.



Kind of like coming to the USA and saying "Im a nice arab student and I wanna learn to fly me some jet airplanes???" hen flying into buildings??? Would that be coming in out of uniform to destroy life and property? Sounds a lot like Al Queada to me... To the best of my knowlege Atta & Co. didnt board those aircraft wearing flight suits with Al Queda patches on them???  When I flew I had a flight suit, a name tag with aviator wings and USN on it, as well as squadron patches and an american flag???? Did Atta? I believe they were "without uniform"

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/17/2008 12:32:01 AM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline
                                        

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to MisterBeast)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Criminals in the White House - 7/17/2008 2:27:52 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

Ah, but these aren't "POW's" are they? No, they're "Enemy Combatants." (One of the 1984-isims that the Bush regime instituted, so they could get around having to treat them under the Geneva Conventions, yet NOT have them treated as civillian criminals, in court.) Typical of the GOP at this stage of their assault on the Constitution.



No Bipolar, they are UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.   The term "unlawful enemy combatants" is not something invented by the Bush administration.  The term was used in 1942 in the Supreme Court decision Ex Parte Quirin.  The case involved the legality of military tribunals trying German military saboteurs.  It was upheld.  So again, you are completely wrong in your assumption that all of this was invented by the Republicans.  In 1942 who was the party in charge?  Hmm, I seem to recall it was the Democrats. 


Bush is still using the term to deny people legal rights Bush himself claims to America is fighting for!  Obviously every other developed country has a different definition of civilized values than Bush and his cronies have, who seem to think it acceptable for a civilized country to ration rights.

Or is this a case of America knows best again?

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 7/17/2008 2:28:44 AM >


_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Criminals in the White House Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094