"Death to America"
and
"Begining of the end of America"
as seen on tv.
do not have exactly the same edge to it
╚════╩═╬════╝
"Death to America"
and
"Begining of the end of America"
as seen on tv.
do not have exactly the same edge to it
Last edited by 100%; 10-23-2006 at 11:55 PM.
there is no god
And there in is something that seems to be lost in emotion.Originally Posted by j2k4
Whence comes this affinity for making a gift to any and every terrorist the entire panoply of American legal smorgasbord?
Because no country will speak for them we must take them under our umbrella?
They're not immigrants, ffs.
Due process does not protect the guilty. It protects the innocent.
No one wants to give the terrorists rights...they want to give the innocent rights...
We had just a short while ago a case of a man arrested, suffer rendition to syria and held for about a year...... then released because they had the wrong person.
Your post makes the assumption that the person in detention is in fact a terrorist.
BTW American citizens can be labled combatants under this bill and have no rights to question their detention.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Use Logic Or STFU!
Eh? Can't Joe American Citizen be subject to the MCA?Whence comes this affinity for making a gift to any and every terrorist the entire panoply of American legal smorgasbord?
Because no country will speak for them we must take them under our umbrella?
They're not immigrants, ffs.
If so, you noticeably left out that part....
Spin again.
edit: I see vid's post. Nvm....so you did leave that part out.
en(un)lightened
And there in is something that seems to be lost in emotion.
Whence comes this affinity for making a gift to any and every terrorist the entire panoply of American legal smorgasbord?
Because no country will speak for them we must take them under our umbrella?
They're not immigrants, ffs.
Due process does not protect the guilty. It protects the innocent.
No one wants to give the terrorists rights...they want to give the innocent rights...
We had just a short while ago a case of a man arrested, suffer rendition to syria and held for about a year...... then released because they had the wrong person.
Your post makes the assumption that the person in detention is in fact a terrorist.
BTW American citizens can be labled combatants under this bill and have no rights to question their detention.
You recount one anecdotal case, then attach the rest of the detainees as situational adjuncts.
Neat trick.
What then would you do with a genuine enemy combatant, assuming you can bring yourself to countenance the possibility one might exist?
Busyman-why don't you sit this one out if you can't make sense.
Go eat a sammich or something.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
The point is without due process how do we know which is guilty or innocent?
One example has come to light. Without the right to question ones detention how would we know if there are more? Just the fact that it happened once is surely enough proof that it could happen again.
We don't punish rapists without due process, is that because we want to protect the rapist or the innocent person accused of rape?
The guilty terrorist can rot forever for all I care, and no matter how much you spin the point to make it look like I don't believe there are guilty terrorists or that I want to give them rights the fact remains that It is only the innocent that due process protects. The guilty would surely be found so and would be punished.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
You post massive spin, which I seek to neutralize, and I'm...what?
The point is without due process how do we know which is guilty or innocent?
One example has come to light. Without the right to question ones detention how would we know if there are more? Just the fact that it happened once is surely enough proof that it could happen again.
We don't punish rapists without due process, is that because we want to protect the rapist or the innocent person accused of rape?
The guilty terrorist can rot forever for all I care, and no matter how much you spin the point to make it look like I don't believe there are guilty terrorists or that I want to give them rights the fact remains that It is only the innocent that due process protects. The guilty would surely be found so and would be punished.
If you are in favor of rotting terrorists, why close Abu Ghraib? Gitmo?
BTW-Do you propose an international tribunal of some sort, ala the World Court?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
keep all of the above for all I care.... but there has to be due process to protect the innocent
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
Keep all of what?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
Keep all of what?If you are in favor of rotting terrorists, why close Abu Ghraib? Gitmo?
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
Add to my last post. A number (not all) of the "enemy combatants" held at gitmo were people rounded up by "contractors" Some of which were Afgan drug and warloards for want of a better description.
What better way for them to rid themselves of competition than to hand over their competitors?
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks