View Full Version : 'Beginning of the end of America'
ahctlucabbuS
10-23-2006, 02:19 AM
I found this (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=17188) interesting.
...
Busyman™
10-23-2006, 02:28 AM
Yup the I cannot believe that a piece of trash like the MCA exists in America.
If folks haven't woken to the fact that we have Darth Sidious as President you are nuts.
Read up on dominion heresy.
Nice post ahct
I like this.....
This President now has his blank check.
He lied to get it.
He lied as he received it.
Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?
“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, “in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them.”
"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush?
The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.
"Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush?
Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.
"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?
The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.
Your words are lies, Sir.
They are lies that imperil us all.
“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” you told us yesterday, “said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.”
That terrorist, sir, could only hope.
Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.
Habeas corpus? Gone.
The Geneva Conventions? Optional.
The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.
These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”
If the quality of Keith Olbermann's reportage/commentary/punditry ever threatens that of, say, John Stewart, I'll let you know.
So far Stewart qualifies as relatively honest, at least as relates to Olbermann's laughable attempt to assume the mantle of a sort of poor-man's Bill O'Reilly from the Left.
Whatever works, I guess.
Neither O'Reilly nor Olbermann is worth a dry fart in a high wind. :dry:
If the quality of Keith Olbermann's reportage/commentary/punditry ever threatens that of, say, John Stewart, I'll let you know.
So far Stewart qualifies as relatively honest, at least as relates to Olbermann's laughable attempt to assume the mantle of a sort of poor-man's Bill O'Reilly from the Left.
Whatever works, I guess.
Neither O'Reilly nor Olbermann is worth a dry fart in a high wind. :dry:
Well said.
He is hyping the "hype" he is describing.
If the quality of Keith Olbermann's reportage/commentary/punditry ever threatens that of, say, John Stewart, I'll let you know.
So far Stewart qualifies as relatively honest, at least as relates to Olbermann's laughable attempt to assume the mantle of a sort of poor-man's Bill O'Reilly from the Left.
Whatever works, I guess.
Neither O'Reilly nor Olbermann is worth a dry fart in a high wind. :dry:
Well said.
He is hyping the "hype" he is describing.
Might I also take this opportunity to draw another parallel, this one between Keith Olbermann and Noam Chomsky...
Actually, while Chomsky might be referred to as the "Olbermann's Olbermann, only older and more boring", The entire theory collapses as soon as one remembers the compulsion to note that, unlike Olbermann, Chomsky had no predecessor. :dabs:
Never mind. :whistling
Olbermann vs Chomsky vs Stewart vs Youtubereportervideoguy
Discussing this topic.... could be very absurd. (This could make us alot of buks as a show..)
None the less the reporter in youtube video is describing the faults of past presidents inorder to gain control,
to prove?
it is "nothing new"?
oh ok
we have been raped all along
be as you where.
maybe in the 60's 80's there would be a student riot.
ahctlucabbuS
10-23-2006, 09:52 PM
Well said.
He is hyping the "hype" he is describing.
Might I also take this opportunity to draw another parallel, this one between Keith Olbermann and Noam Chomsky...
Actually, while Chomsky might be referred to as the "Olbermann's Olbermann, only older and more boring", The entire theory collapses as soon as one remembers the compulsion to note that, unlike Olbermann, Chomsky had no predecessor. :dabs:
Never mind. :whistling
So, what are you saying, that Olbermann is an intellectual too.
Now, come on...
I don't know Olbermann well, so going solely by the above link I'd say what does unite them is that their eyes are open; wide.
vidcc
10-23-2006, 11:01 PM
So what is the opinion about the loss of Habeas corpus if one is accused of being an "enemy combatant"?
or does the fact that the messenger isn't to ones liking make it untrue?
So what is the opinion about the loss of Habeas corpus if one is accused of being an "enemy combatant"?
or does the fact that the messenger isn't to ones liking make it untrue?
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. :dry:
Might I also take this opportunity to draw another parallel, this one between Keith Olbermann and Noam Chomsky...
Actually, while Chomsky might be referred to as the "Olbermann's Olbermann, only older and more boring", The entire theory collapses as soon as one remembers the compulsion to note that, unlike Olbermann, Chomsky had no predecessor. :dabs:
Never mind. :whistling
So, what are you saying, that Olbermann is an intellectual too.
Now, come on...
I don't know Olbermann well, so going solely by the above link I'd say what does unite them is that their eyes are open; wide.
You are right, but only until Olbermann gets 'round to comprehensively committing his idiocy to paper, as has Chomsky, for the necessary confirmation of clinical lunacy.
That status (for now) defaults to Chomsky.
"Death to America"
and
"Begining of the end of America"
as seen on tv.
do not have exactly the same edge to it
vidcc
10-23-2006, 11:50 PM
So what is the opinion about the loss of Habeas corpus if one is accused of being an "enemy combatant"?
or does the fact that the messenger isn't to ones liking make it untrue?
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. :dry:
And there in is something that seems to be lost in emotion.
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.
Busyman™
10-24-2006, 12:47 AM
So what is the opinion about the loss of Habeas corpus if one is accused of being an "enemy combatant"?
or does the fact that the messenger isn't to ones liking make it untrue?
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. :dry:
Eh? Can't Joe American Citizen be subject to the MCA?
If so, you noticeably left out that part....
Spin again.
edit: I see vid's post. Nvm....so you did leave that part out.:dry:
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. :dry:
And there in is something that seems to be lost in emotion.
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.
vidcc
10-24-2006, 01:26 AM
You recount one anecdotal case, then attach the rest of the detainees as situational adjuncts.
Neat trick.
Due process does not protect the guilty. It protects the innocent.
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?
What then would you do with a genuine enemy combatant, assuming you can bring yourself to countenance the possibility one might exist?
No one wants to give the terrorists rights...they want to give the innocent rights...
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.
Due process does not protect the guilty. It protects the innocent.
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?
What then would you do with a genuine enemy combatant, assuming you can bring yourself to countenance the possibility one might exist?
No one wants to give the terrorists rights...they want to give the innocent rights...
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.
You post massive spin, which I seek to neutralize, and I'm...what?
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?
vidcc
10-24-2006, 01:36 AM
keep all of the above for all I care.... but there has to be due process to protect the innocent
keep all of the above for all I care.... but there has to be due process to protect the innocent
Keep all of what?
vidcc
10-24-2006, 02:02 AM
keep all of the above for all I care.... but there has to be due process to protect the innocent
Keep all of what?
If you are in favor of rotting terrorists, why close Abu Ghraib? Gitmo?
vidcc
10-24-2006, 02:07 AM
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?
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?
I think this post suffers from severe over-qualification.
Even if it were true, it might account for what, five detainees?
Even then, they're scum and riff-raff caught in the net; Afghanistan hasn't claimed them, so what?
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Very sensationalistic, though, I commend you for that. :dry:
ahctlucabbuS
10-24-2006, 01:17 PM
I find it incredible that you can't fathom that there need to be procedures in place to protect the innocent in any decent democracy.
You just prove time after time that you're nothing more than a radical nationalist governed by fear and uncritical loyalty towards your nation; not constructive action.
vidcc
10-24-2006, 02:10 PM
I think this post suffers from severe over-qualification.
Even if it were true, it might account for what, five detainees?
So basically you are for false imprisonment of the innocent and presume guilty until proven innocent.....except you are against any way of proving that innocence or even questioning the imprisonment.
Because if you are against those things and for due process for the innocent you have a funny way of saying it.
Yup you have reason to vote republican
Busyman™
10-24-2006, 02:38 PM
And there in is something that seems to be lost in emotion.
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.
Need an interpreter?
It's quite foolish to think one case cannot fit many.
edit: I see you have been exposed....quite easily.
The guilty terrorist can rot forever for all I care,
I merely believe what you believe, it seems.
We have merely lacked a suitable mechanism by which they might be found guilty or innocent-we couldn't trust the job to the World Court, whose reaction would have been to turn them loose, and instead try Bush, Rumsfeld and Franks, and we couldn't depend on international opinion to even agree they should be prosecuted.
We didn't move fast enough for you?
Blame the U.N.
As an aside, what if we had chosen, say, the courts of Israel as a venue for trial?
I find it incredible that you can't fathom that there need to be procedures in place to protect the innocent in any decent democracy.
What makes you think I have any trouble "fathoming" anything?
Again, where were you when we were casting about for a suitable venue?
You can't even grasp the idea of what an "enemy combatant" is, nor the ramifications of an unattached free-agent international criminal-that's what the "non-innocent" amongst these people are.
You just prove time after time that you're nothing more than a radical nationalist governed by fear and uncritical loyalty towards your nation; not constructive action.
I am certainly not "uncritical" of Bush or my government, but neither am I a loyal and unreconstructed acolyte of Noam Chomsky.
Sorry, Busyman, your post doesn't warrant a comment.
Maybe next time.
Busyman™
10-24-2006, 09:48 PM
I merely believe what you believe, it seems.
We have merely lacked a suitable mechanism by which they might be found guilty or innocent-we couldn't trust the job to the World Court, whose reaction would have been to turn them loose, and instead try Bush, Rumsfeld and Franks, and we couldn't depend on international opinion to even agree they should be prosecuted.
We didn't move fast enough for you?
Blame the U.N.
As an aside, what if we had chosen, say, the courts of Israel as a venue for trial?
I find it incredible that you can't fathom that there need to be procedures in place to protect the innocent in any decent democracy.
What makes you think I have any trouble "fathoming" anything?
Again, where were you when we were casting about for a suitable venue?
You can't even grasp the idea of what an "enemy combatant" is, nor the ramifications of an unattached free-agent international criminal-that's what the "non-innocent" amongst these people are.
You just prove time after time that you're nothing more than a radical nationalist governed by fear and uncritical loyalty towards your nation; not constructive action.
I am certainly not "uncritical" of Bush or my government, but neither am I a loyal and unreconstructed acolyte of Noam Chomsky.
Sorry, Busyman, your post doesn't warrant a comment.
Maybe next time.
You just commented.
:1eye: DUH! :1eye:
Next time try not commenting if it doesn't warrant comment.:stars:
Oh and of course you won't comment since you have no answer for it. Your belief is counter to was America is.
Maybe you could start not looking so exposed by saying the MCA shouldn't apply to American citizens. If you say it should then take your ass to Russia.
Your belief is counter to was America is.
No comment. :whistling
Busyman™
10-24-2006, 10:37 PM
Your belief is counter to was America is.
No comment. :whistling
Ooooo, a typooooooo.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.