RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees"

RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

luckydog1 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 1:23:54 PM)
So Farg if it made me happy to rape and kill your daughters, does that mean that I am allowed to under the DOI? That my Liberty could not be removed, or my Life? What if raping and killing is my personal pursuit of happiness, the state has no power to impede it? Your thinking on this is just nonsense. And it is clear why you hurl insults instead of adress the points in post 101. Accepting your logic would mean that there could be no law whatsoever( or at least enforcement of it). Farg also you are directly confused. The states ceded sovreignity to the feds when the constitution was ratified. They voted to make the Constitution the supreme law of the land. It says so right in it. You should try reading the entire Constitution sometime, it is not intended to have edited phrases plucked out. Here is post 101 again, since you can't remeber that far back, "Lets take this back to the Original Idea here. What exactly does giving the detainees full rights mean. It means the right to question thier accusers in open court. This means literally recalling and placing on the witness stands all of our undercover agnets working on the Al Queda and other issues, as well as all moles we have within thier structures, exposing thier families to retaliation. This means openly explaining all of our intell gathering systems, exactly what capabilties we have, and what weaknesses. The same people who expresssed such outrage over Plame being exposed are demanding we expose thousands of agents. Let's not forget, this whole issue is over whether the trails are secret( monitored by the Senate Select Commitee on Intelignece), or on CNN. Also it lets Al Queda know who is compromised on thier side and how to counter act. It gives them a great deal of concrete information. Why exactly do you want to do this Sinergy, Farg, et al? "

luckydog1 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 1:41:34 PM)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,(that means elections Farg) — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. This is what is being done now. The Congress was working with Bush, now the new Congress will, to set up a system in such form that our rights are maintained while protecting our Saftey. In every proposed form there has been oversight by the congress. And there have been plenty of Lawsuits filed by detainees, some of which they have won. This is a difficult process and deservedly needs to be modified. The fact is the system has been turned over to the Dem led Congress and it will be turned over to the next President. It will be modified by the new Congress, and it will most likley be modified again in the future. It will be funny if they do try to give full 14th and due process to al queda captured on the battlefield, especially if they can't adress the questions of post 101. Not a single one of you will give a serious answer, and the reason why is very apperant. I hope the Left does push this and use it as a litmus test for your primary. It will be hillarious to watch the Dem get asked it in the debates. The idea that you want to expose and compromise thousands of American Intelligence agents actually working in the field (especially after all the flap over Plame), pull thousands of Special forces units away from action, and expose thousands of People around the globe who help us, and thier famillies to excecution, is absolutly stupid. It will equall Republican landslide

mnottertail -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 3:18:53 PM)
I await the republican landslide---- LOL, your question deserves one in response; can you read AT ALL? Ron

luckydog1 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 3:26:10 PM)
Hey Mnot, you seem to be afraid to answer the question also, so hey enjoy your razor thin majority while it lasts.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 3:33:41 PM)
He IS afraide to answer the question. He has no answer for it, Luckydog. Fargle was dismantled with his 14th Amendment arguments and his Declaration of Indepence arguments and his b.s. UDHR argument and then he failed to address Post 101; a very prescient post. Sinergy...well...that was Sinergy and he didn't address it either. Koja refused to address it as well. Archer set out some great facts and no of the aforementioned would address Archer. Now Mnot wants to get into the act without even reading the prior posts much less addressing post 101. Yes, you have got it right. He is afraid to address because he knows that you are accurate.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 3:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Fargle, you're normally pretty good but you're way off base here. It's like you're using oatmeal instead of cement to construct an argument. And look who the senators are who came up with this shit! Spector, Levin and Lehey! Three socialists! They're wasting our time and money! I get it ALL from here: quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. That's the beauty of the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't matter how much a person HATES the idea of "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", they still enjoy the protections that philosophy affords. If you don't BELIEVE the Declaration of Independence is the FOUNDATION of our nation, you aren't REALLY an American. Fargle, what do you want to do, give them U.S. Citizenship now???

mnottertail -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 3:40:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Hey Mnot, you seem to be afraid to answer the question also, so hey enjoy your razor thin majority while it lasts. between you and locked away, I see nothing that has the courage of a question, what prithee is on your mind? Stand and deliver and ask me forthrightly. Ron

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 3:47:54 PM)
Wow!!! What a lame response. Have you read Post 101? Do you understand the contents of it? Luckydog dog points out some of the obvious flaws with granting terrorist the same due process rights that American citizens enjoy. Got it? Now address it. Tell us how Luckydog is wrong. Tell us, procedurally, how our government would protect our vital interests from shrewd attornies with unlimited financing. K? Is that clear enough for you? Remember...Post 101.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:00:40 PM)
Lehey from Vermont is a known socialist anyway. I don't think this "Bill" will make it out of committee. Can anyone see Sens Abba Dabba , Hillary Clinton, or McCain actually voting "for" this POS and expecting people to vote for them for "President?" "Senator Clinton, any comment on Senator Lehey's Bill?" "Ahhhhhhh,...what Bill?"

mnottertail -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:14:29 PM)
but I have answered that bit of trivial thinking, to quote another republican president, the best way to change a bad law is to follow it exactly. I am of the opinion that over the span of the lifetimes that we have been the united states that the Grand Old Party could have changed the laws to coincide with the inquisitions and other draconian thinking. However, I see no reason to subvert the law, since it is required of our society you obey it, if you don't like our country, and its laws, get the fuck out.Go back to that little transylvania piece of shit and tie garlic around your neck, and vote Vlad the Impaler. This country that I served honorably, and many of my people did, and many died in the process, and that has given me the freedoms I have and the right to voice an opinion, and to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, by its very definition says that We The People can handle a few shyster lawyers, a communist or two in our government, a fool going postal, hurricanes and floods and gnashing of teeth---- So, anarchists take heed of the moment....but as for me and my house, we follow the LAW, the agreed socio-economic-political contract of the time, for good or for evil, because that is the only thing that separates us from the apes (and you thought it was opposing thumb)--- You cannot rail against the lawyers and due process and expect justice for yourself or your ideals. And you certainly cannot be justified in condemning Saddam Hussien for that, because he isn't from Sheboygan........... Ron---- Not what you are looking for, but asked and answered ad nauseam.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:21:44 PM)
Good God...you are so far off base. We ARE following the law. Can't you pathom that????? The detainees are getting the law that is accorded to them pursuant to their status as illegal combatants. And no, you didn't address Post 101. You haven't addressed it at all. You try to dodge it and it is OBVIOUS but I guess you think you are being clever. Fine, go be impressed with yourself.

mnottertail -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:43:55 PM)
but arguing ambigously is your tact, and only unfair when it is turned upon you, I asked you what (and I will ask again) is : the law that is accorded to them pursuant to their status as illegal combatants? What did I miss in any way in the post in 101. It ain't the law and I said so. I gave proffers of that very fact. There is not much more to say, other than enjoy your razor thin minority while it lasts. LMFCAO, Ron

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 4:50:00 PM)
Wow dude, you don't do this well. Read back over Archer's posts where he says that the law that governs the treatment of the detainees is the Geneva Convention, under which they are classified as illegal combatants. Do you understand that???? My question for you is the same question that I had for Fargle: is Archer correct? Fargle didn't answer that question because, I suspect, Archer is absolutely accurate. No the question is posited to you. Archer served in the military and so did you. Archer's posts are extremely well written and chock full of information. As a military man yourself, I would think that Archer has no greater knowledge or access to information than you do. So....once again....is Archer right or wrong? Before you answer, for Chrssakes, go back and read his posts. If Archer is right, will you then agree with me that the law that governs the detainees is published and clear for all to see and found in the Geneva Convention? Because the law that governs them is certainly NOT the 14th Amendment. Am I being perfectly clear? No room for ambiguity, right???

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:17:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 So Farg if it made me happy to rape and kill your daughters, does that mean that I am allowed to under the DOI? That my Liberty could not be removed, or my Life? What if raping and killing is my personal pursuit of happiness, the state has no power to impede it? Don't worry about The State, and whether it protects that. If you try to imping on MY children's Life or Liberty they WILL DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO KILL YOU. If you survive their attempts, then you have to contented with the Criminal Justice system, and FWIW, if the CJ system fails, I'm a big fan of settling up on the courthouse steps and taking my chances in front of a jury. But I'm betting on my daughter ripping out your carotid artery with her teeth, and using your blood to paint the walls. Maybe that's it. Because WE are so damn motivated to protect our OWN liberty and freedom, we don't look to The Feds to do shit for us. quote: Your thinking on this is just nonsense. And it is clear why you hurl insults instead of adress the points in post 101. Accepting your logic would mean that there could be no law whatsoever( or at least enforcement of it). How so? While you picked an absurd example to illustrate the concept, you're saying that Criminal Law is abhorrent to the principles of the DOI in some way. Explain. quote: Farg also you are directly confused. The states ceded sovreignity to the feds when the constitution was ratified. They voted to make the Constitution the supreme law of the land. It says so right in it. Yeah, but The People didn't cede shit. And if they did, then why are things not specifically ENUMERATED AND DELEGATED actually RESERVED to The States and The People? While it's true that in the LIMITED, ENUMERATED POWERS, The People gave RESPONSIBILITY to The Feds to do some tasks. But that ain't ceding shit. quote: You should try reading the entire Constitution sometime, it is not intended to have edited phrases plucked out. Here is post 101 again, since you can't remeber that far back, Aren't we talking about "Is the "Hamiltonian" "Liberal" interpretation of the Constitution in Line with the Declaration? quote: "Lets take this back to the Original Idea here. What exactly does giving the detainees full rights mean. It MEANS: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't say "All CITIZENS are created equal, does it?" No. It doesn't say "certain privileges" does it? No. The RIGHT of LIBERTY comes from G-d. Or your Mother. Whomever you consider "Your Creator". And the State cannot LAWFULLY take them away. That means no State, whether it's by The Great State of New York, the Articles of Confederation, Federal Constitution etc, cannot remove someone's LIBERTY without Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law. I guess "All Men Are Created Equal" means "Some are MORE EQUAL than others" to the Hamiltonian, eh? quote: It means the right to question thier accusers in open court. That's funny. The Declaration of Independence says nothing about that. Let's examine what The Constitution says: Article 3, Section 2: "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." 5th Amendment: Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Grand Juries are SECRET, aren't they? quote: This means literally recalling and placing on the witness stands all of our undercover agnets working on the Al Queda and other issues, as well as all moles we have within thier structures, exposing thier families to retaliation. That's the biggest load of horseshit ever. HOW DO THE FEDS PROTECT Confidential Informants IN MAFIA TRIALS? Just do the same thing. If you can defeat them high-priced MOB LAWYERS in a Court of Law, what's to fear from some Terrorists? Like the terrorists would retaliate worse than any terrorist against a Rat? How fucking absurd is that? Who dreamed up that talking-point? They're so fucking stupid.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:22:14 PM)
quote: especially if they can't adress the questions of post 101. Not a single one of you will give a serious answer, and the reason why is very apperant. The DOJ protects Mafia informants JUST FINE in TRIALS. Are you suggesting that Al Quaida can retaliate worse than the Mob against a Rat? Absurd. The question itself is ludicrous.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:24:33 PM)
A useless, windbag post. The only reason this post survives is because of Fargle and, at times, Sinergy. But no amount of well reasoned thought is going to educate either of them so we should let this thread die. By the way, Fargle said this: "That's the biggest load of horseshit ever. HOW DO THE FEDS PROTECT Confidential Informants IN MAFIA TRIALS? Just do the same thing. If you can defeat them high-priced MOB LAWYERS in a Court of Law, what's to fear from some Terrorists? Like the terrorists would retaliate worse? " I have won motions to produce the names of confidential informants. On the occasions that I won those motions, the State's case collapsed IMMEDIATELY. Fargle....you are a traitor. LOLOLOLOLOL just kidding, old man.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:24:50 PM)
quote: I hope the Left does push this and use it as a litmus test for your primary. Never forget that I am not a Democrat, or Leftist. I hate Bush for his Fiscal Irresponsibility and FAILURE to "Restore Honesty and Integrity to the White House". The dishonesty on top of that pledge makes me LOATHE him.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:25:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway I have won motions to produce the names of confidential informants. On the occasions that I won those motions, the State's case collapsed IMMEDIATELY. Citations, please. Of all the cases you litigated, employing this tactic. Additionally: How many times was that motion used? How many times did that motion work? How many times did that motion fail?

popeye1250 -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:31:05 PM)
Fargle, you should quit while you're behind. Hey, you're Canadian, right? Let's talk about Seal Clubbing.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:32:48 PM)
I'm a Native New Yorker. Perhaps to a Texan that's the same as being a Canadian, but no. OUR Constitution was ratified on April 20, 1777. OUR CITY CHARTER here in Albany goes back another 100 years prior to that.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125