View Full Version : American Citizen held 18 months without a lawyer
At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the New York-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the United States -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution.
---
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
---
It turns my stomach that the American people allow this administration to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Even the most heinous criminals have rights when they are US Citizens in the US!!!!
I've already written my Senators and Congressman. I wish other Americans speak up too.
What do you think? Is the nature of the crime relevant? Can Ashcroft pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't?
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by KC@Nov 30 2003, 05:11 PM
At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the New York-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the United States -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution.
---
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
---
It turns my stomach that the American people allow this administration to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Even the most heinous criminals have rights when they are US Citizens in the US!!!!
I've already written my Senators and Congressman. I wish other Americans speak up too.
What do you think? Is the nature of the crime relevant? Can Ashcroft pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't?
I wrote my Senator and asked him to advice your Senator to disregard your letter..
and this si what I think
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 05:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 05:11 PM
At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the New York-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the United States -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution.
---
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
---
It turns my stomach that the American people allow this administration to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Even the most heinous criminals have rights when they are US Citizens in the US!!!!
I've already written my Senators and Congressman. I wish other Americans speak up too.
What do you think? Is the nature of the crime relevant? Can Ashcroft pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't?
I wrote my Senator and asked him to advice your Senator to disregard your letter..
and this si what I think[/b][/quote]
haha OK!
At least you're taking a stand ;)
Even Billy from Midnight Express got a lawyer ;)
PornoDoggy
11-30-2003, 05:12 PM
There's a lot of people who don't have enough sense to be concerned.
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 05:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 05:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 05:16 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 05:11 PM
At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the New York-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the United States -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution.
---
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
---
It turns my stomach that the American people allow this administration to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Even the most heinous criminals have rights when they are US Citizens in the US!!!!
I've already written my Senators and Congressman. I wish other Americans speak up too.
What do you think? Is the nature of the crime relevant? Can Ashcroft pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't?
I wrote my Senator and asked him to advice your Senator to disregard your letter..
and this si what I think
haha OK!
At least you're taking a stand ;)[/b][/quote]
Yes, I do....
"I beleive in America..."
(--Bonaserra, God fathger)
;-)))
Dravyk
11-30-2003, 05:40 PM
America is becoming more a dictatorship every day. Americans held by America without counsel. Flaunting the Geneva Convention in Quantanamo. Pulling out of international treaties. Talk of martial law by ex-General Tommy. Assassinians of heads of foreign governments. Establishment of The Fatherland, oops, I mean The Homeland Security bureau. But what does one expect after the suscessful coup in Florida to get Georgie into office to start with?
Reelect Bush! We need some Muslim internment camps in Texas next! :salute:
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 05:47 PM
I will not, I swear, I will not call anybody names but...
people, you still don't get whom are you dealing with...
you and your porno agenda makes me laugh...those who perished from Kantor Fitzgerald made more money than thisa entire baord and industry combined.
The ruthless enemy upon us will take EVERYTHING we muster throwing at them.
oh well....let's have another useless demonstration of solidarity with terrorists...
sarettah
11-30-2003, 05:59 PM
We are at war. And even though I am a great believer in civil rights, we need to recognize that we are at war, plain and simple.
During war time, extraordinary measures are often called for and when the enemy can not be recognized by the uniform he wears; when the enemy can blend and hide in a civilian population; the way the war is fought must match the enemies tactics to be succesful.
The war is far from over, it really has merely begun.
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 05:55 PM
I will not, I swear, I will not call anybody names but...
people, you still don't get whom are you dealing with...
you and your porno agenda makes me laugh...those who perished from Kantor Fitzgerald made more money than thisa entire baord and industry combined.
The ruthless enemy upon us will take EVERYTHING we muster throwing at them.
oh well....let's have another useless demonstration of solidarity with terrorists...
This isn't about a porno agenda. This is about one of my own elected officials taking away rights guaranteed to me since 1791. These officials took an oath to preserve my Constitutional rights when they took office.
This guy is a criminal and PROBABLY belongs behind bars anyway. However, disregarding the 5th and 6th amendments for Citizens it unexcusable. In fact, it puts the public at a greater risk, because eventually this guy will get out because the gov't has fucked up this case so much.
5th Amendment
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.
6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
they should have shot him at the airport.
he is classified i believe as an enemy combatant. he was training in terrorist camps, had met with high level leaders of Al Queda and was involved in a plot to kill people in the US.
why are your rights being threatened? have you trained in Afghanistan with Al Queda lately?
Originally posted by KC@Nov 30 2003, 03:12 PM
5th Amendment
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.
let me help you with your quote:
5th Amendment
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.
Originally posted by JR@Nov 30 2003, 06:52 PM
they should have shot him at the airport.
he is classified i believe as an enemy combatant. he was training in terrorist camps, had met with high level leaders of Al Queda and was involved in a plot to kill people in the US.
why are your rights being threatened? have you trained in Afghanistan with Al Queda lately?
All American Citizens have certain rights. This guy is a scumbag, no doubt.
Holding a US Citizen for 18 months without access to legal counsel is also criminal.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 04:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@Nov 30 2003, 06:52 PM
they should have shot him at the airport.
he is classified i believe as an enemy combatant. he was training in terrorist camps, had met with high level leaders of Al Queda and was involved in a plot to kill people in the US.
why are your rights being threatened? have you trained in Afghanistan with Al Queda lately?
All American Citizens have certain rights. This guy is a scumbag, no doubt.
Holding a US Citizen for 18 months without access to legal counsel is also criminal.
Innocent until proven guilty.[/b][/quote]
You are citing the Constitution and calling it "criminal" while its clearly not. They are not violating the Constitution. His only rights are those granted to him under the law and though people complain about it, they are failing to make the case that the law is being broken or the Constitution violated.
You seem to be confusing shoplifting with terrorism.
I don't really agree that he should have any rights at all. If the government could not make their case, they would not be detaining him. They have been pretty open about why he is being detained and its a matter of public record.
If you feel that the law should be modified, thats one issue... but to accuse people of breaking the law to detain him is another. It's not happening, no matter how wrong his detention might seem to be to some.
IMHO, he is LUCKY to be detained.
Carrie
11-30-2003, 07:03 PM
Have we been actively "at war" for 18 months? If my memory serves me correctly (which is questionable), we haven't.
Of course we've been occupying and "guarding" many places around the world for years, so *technically* they could hold anyone and say it's a "time of war".
sarettah
11-30-2003, 07:06 PM
We have been in a constant state of battle in Afghanistan since we went in after 9/11...
We have been actively pursuing terrorists around the world since about the same time...
So yes, we have been in an active state of war for the past 18 months or so...
Originally posted by JR+Nov 30 2003, 06:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Nov 30 2003, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 03:12 PM
5th Amendment
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.
let me help you with your quote:
5th Amendment
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.[/b][/quote]
That exception applies to the grand jury requirement. Break the 5th Amendment down at the semicolons. Semicolons seperate closely related independant clauses.
5th Amendment
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.
----
There is no exception to the clause preventing him from being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 04:11 PM
Have we been actively "at war" for 18 months? If my memory serves me correctly (which is questionable), we haven't.
Of course we've been occupying and "guarding" many places around the world for years, so *technically* they could hold anyone and say it's a "time of war".
playing semantics over 300 year old and irrelevent wording does not make either side of the argument more correct.
"public danger" - how many terrorist attacks were there in the last two years targeting westerners? how many plots foiled?
Originally posted by JR+Nov 30 2003, 07:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Nov 30 2003, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -KC@Nov 30 2003, 04:02 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--JR@Nov 30 2003, 06:52 PM
they should have shot him at the airport.
he is classified i believe as an enemy combatant. he was training in terrorist camps, had met with high level leaders of Al Queda and was involved in a plot to kill people in the US.
why are your rights being threatened? have you trained in Afghanistan with Al Queda lately?
All American Citizens have certain rights. This guy is a scumbag, no doubt.
Holding a US Citizen for 18 months without access to legal counsel is also criminal.
Innocent until proven guilty.
You are citing the Constitution and calling it "criminal" while its clearly not. They are not violating the Constitution. His only rights are those granted to him under the law and though people complain about it, they are failing to make the case that the law is being broken or the Constitution violated.
You seem to be confusing shoplifting with terrorism.
I don't really agree that he should have any rights at all. If the government could not make their case, they would not be detaining him. They have been pretty open about why he is being detained and its a matter of public record.
If you feel that the law should be modified, thats one issue... but to accuse people of breaking the law to detain him is another. It's not happening, no matter how wrong his detention might seem to be to some.
IMHO, he is LUCKY to be detained.[/b][/quote]
Like it or not, he has the right to due process.
However, since his rights are being trampled upon, I'm sure he'll be walking the streets plotting another crime in no time at all.
Our legal system is based upon the ideal that it is more important to prevent an innocent man from going to prison than it is to put a guilty man in prison.
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 04:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Nov 30 2003, 06:57 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 03:12 PM
5th Amendment
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.
let me help you with your quote:
5th Amendment
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.
That exception applies to the grand jury requirement. Break the 5th Amendment down at the semicolons. Semicolons seperate closely related independant clauses.
5th Amendment
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.
----
There is no exception to the clause preventing him from being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[/b][/quote]
you are probably correct. i dont know how that would be read correctly. i understand you feel he should have a trial, but there are countless reasons why he shouldn't given the circumstances. there is a lot of sensitive info, a lot of investigations, a lot of terrorists, terrorist cells, networks, financiers being broken up etc. you can't just lay it all out on the table for the world to see. presumably you are against the military tribunals as well which would protect sensitive information that incriminates people such as this guy.
i feel no sympathy for him at all. his past is not being called into question and the issues of a speedy trial and legal representation should not take precedence over the safety and security of US Citizens either.
actually KC, after looking at it and reading it i think you are incorrect. it says "except in the case of...." nor shall any person...; nor shall any person; etc.
if you were correct, it would make the first part redundant.
KC, there was a time in this country when that motherfucker would have been strung up and hung from a tree by pissed off citizens. Only under a system this fucked up are we required to respect the consitutional rights of people who are trying to fly planes into our buildings.
now i think KC is correct. i was reading it wrong. the first part just refers to being held without an indictment of a grand jury.
Joe Sixpack
11-30-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Buff@Nov 30 2003, 04:33 PM
KC, there was a time in this country when that motherfucker would have been strung up and hung from a tree by pissed off citizens.
Yeah, back when niggers and women knew their place, right? lol
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by JR@Nov 30 2003, 06:52 PM
they should have shot him at the airport.
he is classified i believe as an enemy combatant. he was training in terrorist camps, had met with high level leaders of Al Queda and was involved in a plot to kill people in the US.
why are your rights being threatened? have you trained in Afghanistan with Al Queda lately?
KC, how many lives were saved because of his 18 months treatm,ent without a lawyer?
Information he provided was irreplacable...
therefore,
as somebody who has FAMILY in NY and not in Alaska which is not threatened by anybody,
I don't give a fuck about all the amendmends,
my FAMILY interests prevail over them.
have a nice day.
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by JR@Nov 30 2003, 07:10 PM
You seem to be confusing shoplifting with terrorism.
..and this si why I always love JR, even when we disagree..
RIGHT TO THE FUCKING POINT with laser presission.
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Nov 30 2003, 07:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Nov 30 2003, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Nov 30 2003, 04:33 PM
KC, there was a time in this country when that motherfucker would have been strung up and hung from a tree by pissed off citizens.
Yeah, back when niggers and women knew their place, right? lol[/b][/quote]
hahahaha Nice!!! ;)
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 07:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 07:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@Nov 30 2003, 06:52 PM
they should have shot him at the airport.
he is classified i believe as an enemy combatant. he was training in terrorist camps, had met with high level leaders of Al Queda and was involved in a plot to kill people in the US.
why are your rights being threatened? have you trained in Afghanistan with Al Queda lately?
KC, how many lives were saved because of his 18 months treatm,ent without a lawyer?
Information he provided was irreplacable...
therefore,
as somebody who has FAMILY in NY and not in Alaska which is not threatened by anybody,
I don't give a fuck about all the amendmends,
my FAMILY interests prevail over them.
have a nice day.[/b][/quote]
I understand your anger. I'm angry and have friends and family in New York also.
The founding father's vision of Freedom and Liberty is more important to me than Ashcroft's utopian vision of a corrupt police state like Iraq.
I support the war against terrorism.
I supported overthrowing that scumbag Hussein.
I don't support holding US citizens without counsel for any reason.
But that's just me, I'm not willing to just crumple up the Bill of Rights.
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Nov 30 2003, 06:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Nov 30 2003, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Nov 30 2003, 04:33 PM
KC, there was a time in this country when that motherfucker would have been strung up and hung from a tree by pissed off citizens.
Yeah, back when niggers and women knew their place, right? lol[/b][/quote]
Right! I wasn't referring to criminals, like cattle rustlers, murderers, thieves, etc. Just niggers and women.
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Buff@Nov 30 2003, 08:15 PM
Right! I wasn't referring to criminals, like cattle rustlers, murderers, thieves, etc.
Buff, stop belitteling Australians!
;-)))
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by KC@Nov 30 2003, 08:10 PM
I understand your anger.
I doubt it very much...I lived behind "Iron Curtain", you didn't..
and still I support "the infliction and bending of the Constitution"
do YOU know why?
They should have just shot him when they arrested him. At least it wouldn't feel like they're mocking the Constitution...
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 08:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 08:10 PM
I understand your anger.
I doubt it very much...I lived behind "Iron Curtain", you didn't..
and still I support "the infliction and bending of the Constitution"
do YOU know why?[/b][/quote]
You support it as long as a bent constitution isn't being applied to you personally.
To me, it's a slipperly slope and when you start bending it for this.. bending it for that.. It becomes useless.
Every elected or appointed government official is sworn in to their position. Part of that swearing in involves defending the Constitution.
It should be absolute.
jimmyf
11-30-2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 02:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 05:11 PM
At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the New York-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the United States -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution.
---
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
---
It turns my stomach that the American people allow this administration to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Even the most heinous criminals have rights when they are US Citizens in the US!!!!
I've already written my Senators and Congressman. I wish other Americans speak up too.
What do you think? Is the nature of the crime relevant? Can Ashcroft pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't?
I wrote my Senator and asked him to advice your Senator to disregard your letter..
and this si what I think[/b][/quote]
cuncur :wnw: screw him he was going 2 kill a bunch of people. maybe others will get the ideal, you go 2 jail don't get a lawyer, and they might keep you for ever.
It's a controversial issue. I'm surprised there wouldn't be more outrage on this forum. :)
Thanks for the debate.. I'm happy as long as I am free to write my Senators and Congressman with my first Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" :)
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 08:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 08:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 08:10 PM
I understand your anger.
I doubt it very much...I lived behind "Iron Curtain", you didn't..
and still I support "the infliction and bending of the Constitution"
do YOU know why?
You support it as long as a bent constitution isn't being applied to you personally.
To me, it's a slipperly slope and when you start bending it for this.. bending it for that.. It becomes useless.
Every elected or appointed government official is sworn in to their position. Part of that swearing in involves defending the Constitution.
It should be absolute.[/b][/quote]
KC, wrong!
I lived with bent constitution or actually lack of it for 22 years..
care to try again?
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -KC@Nov 30 2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 08:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 08:10 PM
I understand your anger.
I doubt it very much...I lived behind "Iron Curtain", you didn't..
and still I support "the infliction and bending of the Constitution"
do YOU know why?
You support it as long as a bent constitution isn't being applied to you personally.
To me, it's a slipperly slope and when you start bending it for this.. bending it for that.. It becomes useless.
Every elected or appointed government official is sworn in to their position. Part of that swearing in involves defending the Constitution.
It should be absolute.
KC, wrong!
I lived with bent constitution or actually lack of it for 22 years..
care to try again?[/b][/quote]
I don't have any other guesses.
I've shared my point of view on the situation. I'm not really looking to change anyone else's opinions. I just felt the need to raise the issue.
LadyMischief
11-30-2003, 09:00 PM
Unfortunately for him, his crimes fall under the Patriot act. And under the Patriot act, they don't ever have to charge him with anything formally as long as he is supposed to have been involved in any terrorist activities. In fact, even if he is a born American, I believe he can lose his American citizenship under the act.. (or is that the Patriot act 2). And people still want to vote Bush back into office.. scary shit.
PornoDoggy
11-30-2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by JR@Nov 30 2003, 06:52 PM
they should have shot him at the airport.
he is classified i believe as an enemy combatant. he was training in terrorist camps, had met with high level leaders of Al Queda and was involved in a plot to kill people in the US.
why are your rights being threatened? have you trained in Afghanistan with Al Queda lately?
That is what is alleged by the government - the same government that assured us that Saddam was ready to deploy WMD on 45 minute's notice.
Some of us take seriously thoughts like opposition to "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
And KC - you really shouldn't be suprised at the reaction here. It has nothing to do with Lensman or GFY, guns, Lensman or GFY, democrats, Lensman or GFY, GFY or Lensman ... and did I mention Lensman?
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by KC@Nov 30 2003, 08:31 PM
I don't have any other guesses.
I've shared my point of view on the situation. I'm not really looking to change anyone else's opinions. I just felt the need to raise the issue.
and I glad you did....this is Oprano and America after all
;-))
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by LadyMischief@Nov 30 2003, 09:08 PM
And people still want to vote Bush back into office.. scary shit.
I find Bush much LESS scarier than Bin Laden and Co...
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2003, 09:26 PM
It has nothing to do with Lensman or GFY, guns, Lensman or GFY, democrats, Lensman or GFY, GFY or Lensman ... and did I mention Lensman?
"It was Barzini all along. Lensman is a pimp, he would have never outsmarted Santino!"
;-)))))) :gbounce:
Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 30 2003, 06:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 30 2003, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@Nov 30 2003, 06:52 PM
they should have shot him at the airport.
he is classified i believe as an enemy combatant. he was training in terrorist camps, had met with high level leaders of Al Queda and was involved in a plot to kill people in the US.
why are your rights being threatened? have you trained in Afghanistan with Al Queda lately?
That is what is alleged by the government - the same government that assured us that Saddam was ready to deploy WMD on 45 minute's notice.
Some of us take seriously thoughts like opposition to "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
And KC - you really shouldn't be suprised at the reaction here. It has nothing to do with Lensman or GFY, guns, Lensman or GFY, democrats, Lensman or GFY, GFY or Lensman ... and did I mention Lensman?[/b][/quote]
The 60's are over.
J. Edger Hoover is not coming to get you.
P.D. maybe the "reaction" is also due to the painful reality that there is no blanket rule that can EQUALLY gaurantee the safety, security and rights of all people, innocent or not. People have made a choice to make some hypothetical sacrifices to help make sure that a nuclear bomb is not detonated in Manhatten and 1,000,000 people get vaporized because we had to play fair with murderers in a system that favors, shields and protects them.
That does not sound unreasonable to me at all.
Originally posted by LadyMischief@Nov 30 2003, 09:08 PM
Unfortunately for him, his crimes fall under the Patriot act. And under the Patriot act, they don't ever have to charge him with anything formally as long as he is supposed to have been involved in any terrorist activities. In fact, even if he is a born American, I believe he can lose his American citizenship under the act.. (or is that the Patriot act 2). And people still want to vote Bush back into office.. scary shit.
It will be interesting to see how the Patriot Act plays out. I have a hunch the lawmakers got a little too greedy in some places.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
I've been reading a bit about the oath's of office various officials are required to take.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/histor...Oath_Office.htm (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm)
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Serge, I was also a little surprised that you said "I don't give a fuck about amendments" ;)
I think YOU also took this oath when you became a US Citizen!!
INA: ACT 337 - OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE
Sec. 337. [8 U.S.C. 1448]
(a) A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be and before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony before the Attorney General or a court with jurisdiction under section 310(B) an oath
(1) to support the Constitution of the United States;
(2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
...
http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/s....htm#slb-act337 (http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-21/slb-8852?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act337)
PornoDoggy
11-30-2003, 09:32 PM
Spoken like a good German, JR
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2003, 06:40 PM
Spoken like a good German, JR
what kind of fascist remark is that?
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 09:39 PM
Serge, I was also a little surprised that you said "I don't give a fuck about amendments"
I think YOU also took this oath when you became a US Citizen!!
************************************************** *****
as I said before:
Bonasera: "I believe in America. America has made my fortune."
and if my AMERICAN Government decides to detain the fucker for 18 months or for all etrnity-
I'll support my Government...
is there anything wrong with that?
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 09:47 PM
is there anything wrong with that?
If the American Government becomes a Domestic enemy of the Constitution there's something wrong with it. ;)
--
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
--
I never took an oath when I became a Citizen, but you did. ;))
PornoDoggy
11-30-2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by JR+Nov 30 2003, 09:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Nov 30 2003, 09:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2003, 06:40 PM
Spoken like a good German, JR
what kind of fascist remark is that?[/b][/quote]
Not a facist remark at all - I would have used sheep instead, but [some twit] has used the word far too often lately.
With regard to your comment about the 60s being over. There are more than a few people who only regret that the illegal violations of civil rights of hundreds of thousands of Americans were made public and that they were discontinued. There are people ON THIS BOARD - who reflect the feeling of at least some within the administration - that a large portion of the American people who disagree with their political philosophy are in fact traitors to their country.
I wouldn't trust Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton with the powers we've given Bush and Ashcroft. Unlike many of the partisans around here, I wouldn't feel any different about it if they were the ones who held those powers.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Nov 30 2003, 09:55 PM
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 09:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 09:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 09:47 PM
is there anything wrong with that?
If the American Government becomes a Domestic enemy of the Constitution there's something wrong with it. ;)
--
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
--
I never took an oath when I became a Citizen, but you did. ;))[/b][/quote]
and who do you think he is talking about? Just Kay?
;-))
Kay Adams: "Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed!"
Michael Corleone: "Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?"
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2003, 09:55 PM
I wouldn't trust Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton with the powers we've given Bush and Ashcroft.
no argument from me!
;-)))
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 09:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 09:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -KC@Nov 30 2003, 09:52 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 09:47 PM
is there anything wrong with that?
If the American Government becomes a Domestic enemy of the Constitution there's something wrong with it. ;)
--
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
--
I never took an oath when I became a Citizen, but you did. ;))
and who do you think he is talking about? Just Kay?
;-))
Kay Adams: "Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed!"
Michael Corleone: "Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?"[/b][/quote]
Hahaha..
I love the Godfather references. ;)
Carrie
11-30-2003, 09:50 PM
I don't care if this guy murdered 30 people with his two bare hands - he has a right to a lawyer and a right to go to trial to be tried.
Then again I also think that sticking a naked convicted murderer or rapist in a room with the victim's family and friends should not be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", so my opinion may not mean much.
I have a feeling that if someone deemed that your websites were a means of transmitting secret terrorist messages and threw you in a cell for more than 24 hours, you'd be screaming about your rights rather than semantics and the Patriot Act.
PornoDoggy
11-30-2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 09:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2003, 09:55 PM
I wouldn't trust Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton with the powers we've given Bush and Ashcroft.
no argument from me!
;-)))[/b][/quote]
Well, how are you going to feel when they (or someone like them) inheret these powers - either next year, or in 4 or 8 years?
(I mean, after you finish grieving over the loss of your partner MikeAI, who will have a stroke when one of them is elected).
PornoDoggy
11-30-2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 09:58 PM
I don't care if this guy murdered 30 people with his two bare hands - he has a right to a lawyer and a right to go to trial to be tried.
Then again I also think that sticking a naked convicted murderer or rapist in a room with the victim's family and friends should not be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", so my opinion may not mean much.
I have a feeling that if someone deemed that your websites were a means of transmitting secret terrorist messages and threw you in a cell for more than 24 hours, you'd be screaming about your rights rather than semantics and the Patriot Act.
Uhhh ...
wow.
Are we allowed to agree on something? :)
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by KC@Nov 30 2003, 09:57 PM
Hahaha..
I love the Godfather references. ;)
and talking about pledges..
Luca Brasi: "Don Corleone, I am honored and grateful that you have invited me to your daughter... 's wedding... on the day of your daughter's wedding. And I hope their first child will be a masculine child. I pledge me ever-ending allegiance to your daughter's bridal purse."
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 09:58 PM
I have a feeling that if someone deemed that your websites were a means of transmitting secret terrorist messages and threw you in a cell for more than 24 hours, you'd be screaming about your rights rather than semantics and the Patriot Act.
Carrie, neither MikeAI nor me care about that...
1) MikeAI misspells so bad, no terrorist would ever understand him
2) My English/spelling is even worse than his!
Oprano is SAFE, you all worried for NOTHING
;-)))
Carrie
11-30-2003, 09:59 PM
Serge your typos could be taken for secret code :awinky:
PD - Of course! Non-complex friendships would be boring :P
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 10:07 PM
Serge your typos could be taken for secret code :awinky:
not after I gave the military intelligence which intervied me before my pledge and becoming the citizen,
everything I knew about Krasnoyarsk II which you won't find on ANY maps,
which doesn't prevent them from manufacturing nuclear weapons there.
hey, KC, what else have YOU done for this country, besides writing the letter to your elected official?
pornoman
11-30-2003, 10:03 PM
I feel safer with him in prison..
ask me again in another 18 months..
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 10:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 10:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 10:07 PM
Serge your typos could be taken for secret code :awinky:
hey, KC, what else have YOU done for this country, besides writing the letter to your elected official?[/b][/quote]
I pay taxes.
I vote.
I love this country.
I respect the Constitution.
I do my part. I even post in public forums to discuss things I take issue with. ;)
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 10:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 10:10 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 10:07 PM
Serge your typos could be taken for secret code :awinky:
hey, KC, what else have YOU done for this country, besides writing the letter to your elected official?
I pay taxes.
I vote.
I love this country.
I respect the Constitution.
I do my part. I even post in public forums to discuss things I take issue with. ;)[/b][/quote]
ok, nothing, IOW
;-)))
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2003, 08:40 PM
Spoken like a good German, JR
PD, it never ceases to amaze me that you in the American Left cry out about how all our rights are being trampled, and then in the next breath demand government snatch 100% of the income of anyone making more than $10/hr. It's the most blantant hypocrisy human beings have ever been guilty of.
Tell me how you can have your freedom if you don't even own that which you are paid for your labor?
Last edited by Buff at Nov 30 2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 10:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 10:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -KC@Nov 30 2003, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 10:10 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 10:07 PM
Serge your typos could be taken for secret code :awinky:
hey, KC, what else have YOU done for this country, besides writing the letter to your elected official?
I pay taxes.
I vote.
I love this country.
I respect the Constitution.
I do my part. I even post in public forums to discuss things I take issue with. ;)
ok, nothing, IOW
;-)))[/b][/quote]
Call it what you want. I do my part to defend the Constitution.
I'm waiting to do my public service when I run for President! ;)
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2003, 06:55 PM
Not a facist remark at all - I would have used sheep instead, but [some twit] has used the word far too often lately.
With regard to your comment about the 60s being over. There are more than a few people who only regret that the illegal violations of civil rights of hundreds of thousands of Americans were made public and that they were discontinued. There are people ON THIS BOARD - who reflect the feeling of at least some within the administration - that a large portion of the American people who disagree with their political philosophy are in fact traitors to their country.
I wouldn't trust Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton with the powers we've given Bush and Ashcroft. Unlike many of the partisans around here, I wouldn't feel any different about it if they were the ones who held those powers.
Thats all fine. You have an opinion. I have an opinion. Everyone has an opinion. They are different opinions. You are acting as if there is a right opinion. There isn't on this issue as far as i believe. There are only degrees of concern. Your concerns are different than mine or at the very least, you have placed some concerns over others.
Why does it have to be any more complicated or deep than that? Why would you not respect the opinions of others that are fine with The Patriot Act? If they agree with you, presumably they are not "sheep" or Nazis... but rather on the "right side of the issue". That does not sound like a free world to me.
Last edited by JR at Nov 30 2003, 07:36 PM
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 10:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 10:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by -KC@Nov 30 2003, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 10:10 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 10:07 PM
Serge your typos could be taken for secret code :awinky:
hey, KC, what else have YOU done for this country, besides writing the letter to your elected official?
I pay taxes.
I vote.
I love this country.
I respect the Constitution.
I do my part. I even post in public forums to discuss things I take issue with. ;)
ok, nothing, IOW
;-)))
Call it what you want. I do my part to defend the Constitution.
I'm waiting to do my public service when I run for President! ;)[/b][/quote]
don't militia who blew Oklahoma building also claims to defend the Constitution?
you have some bedfellows
;-)))
PornoDoggy
11-30-2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by JR+Nov 30 2003, 10:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Nov 30 2003, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2003, 06:55 PM
Not a facist remark at all - I would have used sheep instead, but [some twit] has used the word far too often lately.
With regard to your comment about the 60s being over. There are more than a few people who only regret that the illegal violations of civil rights of hundreds of thousands of Americans were made public and that they were discontinued. There are people ON THIS BOARD - who reflect the feeling of at least some within the administration - that a large portion of the American people who disagree with their political philosophy are in fact traitors to their country.
I wouldn't trust Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton with the powers we've given Bush and Ashcroft. Unlike many of the partisans around here, I wouldn't feel any different about it if they were the ones who held those powers.
Thats all fine. You have an opinion. I have an opinion. Everyone has an opinion. They are different opinions. You are acting as if there is a right opinion. There isn't on this issue as far as i believe. There are only degrees of concern. Your concerns are different than mine or at the very least, you have placed some concerns over others.
Why does it have to be any more complicated or deep than that? Why would you not respect the opinions of others that are fine with The Patriot Act? If they agree with you, presumably they are not "sheep" or Nazis... but rather on the "right side of the issue". That does not sound like a free world to me.[/b][/quote]
How is insinuating that I am still living in the 60s &/or paranoid about a return to the days of J. Edgar Hoover any different from what was intended as a sarcastic remark?
You insinuated that I am living in the past before I insinuated you were wearing blinders to the dangers that I think the so-called Patriot Act represents. How are your comments on the issue any different than mine?
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 10:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -KC@Nov 30 2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by -KC@Nov 30 2003, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 10:10 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 10:07 PM
Serge your typos could be taken for secret code :awinky:
hey, KC, what else have YOU done for this country, besides writing the letter to your elected official?
I pay taxes.
I vote.
I love this country.
I respect the Constitution.
I do my part. I even post in public forums to discuss things I take issue with. ;)
ok, nothing, IOW
;-)))
Call it what you want. I do my part to defend the Constitution.
I'm waiting to do my public service when I run for President! ;)
don't militia who blew Oklahoma building also claims to defend the Constitution?
you have some bedfellows
;-)))[/b][/quote]
At least he got a trial.
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by KC@Nov 30 2003, 10:57 PM
At least he got a trial.
..and you think this one is gonna get away?
He sings like cannery and the ONLY people interested in him being seen by lawyers, shmoyers
are terrorists.
They have vested interest, you don't, despite all the rethorics
;_))
Let him suffer and don't lose your sleep over
PornoDoggy
11-30-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 11:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 10:57 PM
At least he got a trial.
..and you think this one is gonna get away?
He sings like cannery and the ONLY people interested in him being seen by lawyers, shmoyers
are terrorists.
They have vested interest, you don't, despite all the rethorics
;_))
Let him suffer and don't lose your sleep over[/b][/quote]
Fuck. Now I find out I'm not only a traitor, I'm a terrorist.
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Nov 30 2003, 11:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Nov 30 2003, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Nov 30 2003, 10:57 PM
At least he got a trial.
..and you think this one is gonna get away?
He sings like cannery and the ONLY people interested in him being seen by lawyers, shmoyers
are terrorists.
They have vested interest, you don't, despite all the rethorics
;_))
Let him suffer and don't lose your sleep over[/b][/quote]
I have a vested interest in resisting a tyrannical government.
"When the Government fears the people, the people live in FREEDOM, but when the People fear the Government, the People live in Tyranny”.
- Thomas Jefferson
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 11:04 PM
"When the Government fears the people, the people live in FREEDOM, but when the People fear the Government, the People live in Tyranny”.
- Thomas Jefferson
was Tom Hagen...he was a Peace Time Consiglieri
;-))))
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 11:12 PM
"When the Government fears the people, the people live in FREEDOM, but when the People fear the Government, the People live in Tyranny”.
- Thomas Jefferson
was Tom Hagen...he was a Peace Time Consiglieri
;-))))
I slightly misquoted Thomas Jefferson..
"When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Winetalk.com
11-30-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 11:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 11:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 11:12 PM
"When the Government fears the people, the people live in FREEDOM, but when the People fear the Government, the People live in Tyranny”.
- Thomas Jefferson
was Tom Hagen...he was a Peace Time Consiglieri
;-))))
I slightly misquoted Thomas Jefferson..
"When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."[/b][/quote]
and this is 100% accurate quote from Tom Hagen:
"Tom Hagen: "Now we have the unions, we have the gambling; and they're the best things to have. But narcotics is a thing of the future. And if we don't get a piece of that action, we risk everything we have. I mean not now, but, ah, ten years from now.""
which I interpret:
"if we don't break the spine of terrorism NOW,
we are endanger the future of our children.
do you have children, KC?
The Godfather is a great piece of art. Although it's fiction.
Thomas Jefferson was real.
Here are some more of his quotes. He was able to see a lot further than just 10 years.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution".
Here are a lot more:
http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/Quo...homas+Jefferson (http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByCatPerson?ReadForm&RestrictToCategory=Thomas+Jefferson)
Carrie
11-30-2003, 11:24 PM
I'm all for "breaking the spine" of the terrorists, BUT... (there's always a but)...
If they will do this to this man, an American citizen,
then they will do it to me. And you.
And just for the record, the Patriot Act scares the ever-living shit out of me. It gives the gov't FAR too much power.
Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 08:32 PM
I'm all for "breaking the spine" of the terrorists, BUT... (there's always a but)...
If they will do this to this man, an American citizen,
then they will do it to me. And you.
And just for the record, the Patriot Act scares the ever-living shit out of me. It gives the gov't FAR too much power.
they are coming to get us.
do you have any proof of that other than a guy being detained who was training with Al Queda to blow up Americans?
Carrie
11-30-2003, 11:30 PM
I didn't say they're coming to get us, so I don't have to prove anything.
I just said that if they'll do it to him, they'll do it to you.
The bladed pendulum cuts both ways, and cheering for it just because it's not cutting you at the moment doesn't eliminate the fact that it can swing over to your side.
Originally posted by JR+Nov 30 2003, 11:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Nov 30 2003, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 08:32 PM
I'm all for "breaking the spine" of the terrorists, BUT... (there's always a but)...
If they will do this to this man, an American citizen,
then they will do it to me. And you.
And just for the record, the Patriot Act scares the ever-living shit out of me. It gives the gov't FAR too much power.
they are coming to get us.
do you have any proof of that other than a guy being detained who was training with Al Queda to blow up Americans?[/b][/quote]
It always starts with one person.
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others."
-Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 08:38 PM
I just said that if they'll do it to him, they'll do it to you.
this is what i am talking about.
"they will do it to me" ????
do you have anymore info?
when?
where?
why?
i am innocent. i swear.
<JR rehearsing pleading for his life>
Please Mr. Government Man,... dont take out my liver with that spoon and force me to eat it. Please!?!?!"
</JR rehearsing pleading for his life>
Diamond Jim
11-30-2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 11:38 PM
I just said that if they'll do it to him, they'll do it to you.
They'll do it to me if I train to kill Americans and plot to perform terrorist acts....
I can live with that...
BTW, I am no big fan of the Patriot Act...it is not being abused here...
but dont think for a second that i don't appreciate the value of alarmists in society.
you worry about everything, so i dont have to.
:bdance:
PornoDoggy
11-30-2003, 11:37 PM
This is an American citizen. What they taught me in Civics class oh so long ago is that an American citizen has a right to trial by Jury, and a lawyer to defend himself. You may consider it silly, or irrelevant, or alarmist, or any number of other things - but as a kid raised on the idea that the difference between America and the society in which Serge grew up is that the government could not levy charges against you without providing you the opportunity to defend yourself.
I stood silent when they came for the ...
Carrie
11-30-2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by JR@Nov 30 2003, 11:34 PM
do you have any proof of that other than a guy being detained who was training with Al Queda to blow up Americans?
This brings up a curious word, "proof".
I haven't seen any proof that this man *was* training with Al Quaeda or that he planned to blow up Americans.
Neither have you, because the evidence has not been presented in a court of law. It's just someone's say-so at this point.
If they grabbed Serge tomorrow and threw him in prison for sending coded terrorist messages on Cotac.com, would you believe them or would you be telling them to prove it?
If they threw *you* in prison tomorrow claiming that *you* were part of Al Quaeda and planning to blow up Americans, would you sit there calmly or demand a lawyer and a trial?
JohnAMC
12-01-2003, 12:03 AM
Terrorism is a very interesting agenda. As of 9/11, there have been no other verifiable attacks on the US. But the US as we knew it before 9/11 and as it is know has changed. Maybe for the good, as some would have us believe, and maybe for the bad, as others would have us believe. But the government, as it is, finds ways to try and protect us. Within this ring of protection are people that justify their jobs and exploit their inner dark sides of manipulation and power. I'm sure their are gov. employees that are doing the job they do, as best as they can and then at 5pm they go home to their wife and kids. But there are the few, but highly placed few, that feel that they need to stick it to someone, anyone, maybe even you. These few are so deeply embedded and so well connected that they can do no wrong. These are the other terrorists. The ones that can make your life and mine a living hell, just because they can. City, county, state, and federal, they all have these over acheiver.
Originally posted by Carrie+Nov 30 2003, 08:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Nov 30 2003, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@Nov 30 2003, 11:34 PM
do you have any proof of that other than a guy being detained who was training with Al Queda to blow up Americans?
This brings up a curious word, "proof".
I haven't seen any proof that this man *was* training with Al Quaeda or that he planned to blow up Americans.
Neither have you, because the evidence has not been presented in a court of law. It's just someone's say-so at this point.
If they grabbed Serge tomorrow and threw him in prison for sending coded terrorist messages on Cotac.com, would you believe them or would you be telling them to prove it?
If they threw *you* in prison tomorrow claiming that *you* were part of Al Quaeda and planning to blow up Americans, would you sit there calmly or demand a lawyer and a trial?[/b][/quote]
Huh?!?!
his case has been in court. it is a unique situation. it was a first time. the law is being tested, the authority and claims of the government are being tested ... and a Federal judge ruled quite a while ago that he has the right to access to an attorney.
what is it exactly that will happen again? what can happen to me?
these are unique issues being tested in the courts for the first time. and THEY ARE being tested as we speak. are you guys even aware of the rulings on his case?
it seems that you aren't.
How is Bush coming to get you if the courts have the final say?
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 11:32 PM
I'm all for "breaking the spine" of the terrorists, BUT... (there's always a but)...
If they will do this to this man, an American citizen,
then they will do it to me. And you.
And just for the record, the Patriot Act scares the ever-living shit out of me. It gives the gov't FAR too much power.
and who voted for it?
officials elected by you,
thus they represent the prevailing =view of the citizens of thsi country.
live with it
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 09:12 PM
and who voted for it?
officials elected by you,
thus they represent the prevailing =view of the citizens of thsi country.
live with it
exactly! this is the lunacy of their ideas. they support democracy as long as they agree with it. if not, then people are "sheep", brainwashed and being tricked and lied to and the ruling party are Nazi's.
crazy.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by KC@Nov 30 2003, 11:28 PM
The Godfather is a great piece of art. Although it's fiction.
Thomas Jefferson was real.
Here are some more of his quotes. He was able to see a lot further than just 10 years.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution".
Here are a lot more:
http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/Quo...homas+Jefferson (http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByCatPerson?ReadForm&RestrictToCategory=Thomas+Jefferson)
so you answered my question:
you have no kids and your own perception of the government is much more important than the lives of the children you don't have.
jefferson, shmefferson, hagen, 10 years, fiction...
even hagen could see for the 10 years span,
you can't...the life of your children is not in your equation.
dont hurt yourselves with all this information
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...4¬Found=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7833-2002Dec4¬Found=true)
"A U.S. citizen accused of plotting to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in the United States must be granted access to an attorney to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant, a federal judge in New York ruled yesterday.
The ruling, part of a broad, 102-page decision by Michael B. Mukasey, chief judge for New York's Southern District, rejected the Bush administration's assertion that allowing Jose Padilla access to his attorney would impede intelligence gathering and jeopardize national security."
"In his decision, Mukasey said "the central issue" in the case was whether "the president has the authority to designate as an unlawful combatant an American citizen, captured on American soil, and detain him without trial."
The president did have that right, Mukasey wrote, rejecting Padilla's argument that the Constitution prohibits the indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen. The president, in his role as commander in chief, can designate Americans as enemy combatants, Mukasey ruled, adding that it was not necessary to address concerns that Padilla's detention, like the war on terrorism, could go on indefinitely."
"The Padilla case is one of several working their way through the legal system to test the Bush administration's claim of broad powers to wage a war on terrorism. Yesterday, the full federal appeals court in Philadelphia, reaffirming the position of a three-judge panel, upheld the legality of closed-door immigration hearings for terror suspects."
PornoDoggy
12-01-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by JR+Dec 1 2003, 12:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Dec 1 2003, 12:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 09:12 PM
and who voted for it?
officials elected by you,
thus they represent the prevailing =view of the citizens of thsi country.
live with it
exactly! this is the lunacy of their ideas. they support democracy as long as they agree with it. if not, then people are "sheep", brainwashed and being tricked and lied to and the ruling party are Nazi's.
crazy.[/b][/quote]
Gee ... whatever happened to You are acting as if there is a right opinion. There isn't on this issue as far as i believe. There are only degrees of concern. Your concerns are different than mine or at the very least, you have placed some concerns over others.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by JR+Dec 1 2003, 12:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Dec 1 2003, 12:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 09:12 PM
and who voted for it?
officials elected by you,
thus they represent the prevailing =view of the citizens of thsi country.
live with it
exactly! this is the lunacy of their ideas. they support democracy as long as they agree with it. if not, then people are "sheep", brainwashed and being tricked and lied to and the ruling party are Nazi's.
crazy.[/b][/quote]
JR, it's FEAR talking in them, and not the fear for this country, it's future, it's economy,
it's fear for their today's piece of bread.
who the fuck cares what would happen with this country if ONE dirty bomb is blown in LA or NY in comparission for their "Jefferson's given right to seel porn on the Internet"?
Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 30 2003, 09:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 30 2003, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Dec 1 2003, 12:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 09:12 PM
and who voted for it?
officials elected by you,
thus they represent the prevailing =view of the citizens of thsi country.
live with it
exactly! this is the lunacy of their ideas. they support democracy as long as they agree with it. if not, then people are "sheep", brainwashed and being tricked and lied to and the ruling party are Nazi's.
crazy.
Gee ... whatever happened to You are acting as if there is a right opinion. There isn't on this issue as far as i believe. There are only degrees of concern. Your concerns are different than mine or at the very least, you have placed some concerns over others.
[/b][/quote]
i was commenting on your criticism of people exercising the same rights you claim to defend.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 11:48 PM
If they grabbed Serge tomorrow and threw him in prison for sending coded terrorist messages on Cotac.com, would you believe them or would you be telling them to prove it?
Carrie, as your know,
Serge was born and raised in the Communist State and has his survival skill to match the skills of Founding Fathers.
The entire Oprano, GFY and Netpond will demand my release, because the first thing I'd do is to name everybody I met on the boards as my co-conspirators.
Why do you think we record IP's of every poster?
Because EVERYBODY transmit coded messages and I already made a deal with a prosecution
;-))))
Fletch XXX
12-01-2003, 12:21 AM
have a friend who whispered shadows of kolyma into my ear about his great grandother, fear, fear is a cold memory...
kolyma means death.
:stout:
Originally posted by JR+Dec 1 2003, 12:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Dec 1 2003, 12:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 09:12 PM
and who voted for it?
officials elected by you,
thus they represent the prevailing =view of the citizens of thsi country.
live with it
exactly! this is the lunacy of their ideas. they support democracy as long as they agree with it. if not, then people are "sheep", brainwashed and being tricked and lied to and the ruling party are Nazi's.
crazy.[/b][/quote]
Our system isn't perfect. However, I'm hopeful that people will speak up when their rights are being stepped on.
I'm also hopeful that the Judicial system will continue to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Which I why I posted this thread in the first place. If you feel this is wrong, write a letter.
http://www.senate.com/
PornoDoggy
12-01-2003, 12:23 AM
Well, I think it's interesting that Carrie and I are taking the same position, because it happens about as often as Torone and I do.
JR, as I told you, the "good little German" remark was meant tounge-in-cheek. I still see it as little different as suggesting that I am living in the past.
And Serge ... no offense, but your analysis of what causes my concern couldn't be further off base. I don't relate this to porn at all. I oppose the erosion of civil rights, pure and simple. I don't believe that denying this individual the same rights as any other alleged criminal is going to materially impact whether New York or L.A. becomes a target.
As far as the "live with it" bullshit - it don't get undone if enough people don't make enough noise. Otherwise, Serge could be snatched up by the revenuers for his wine collection - that was a "done deal" once, too.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Dec 1 2003, 12:32 AM
Fletch XXX
12-01-2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 09:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 09:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Dec 1 2003, 12:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 09:12 PM
and who voted for it?
officials elected by you,
thus they represent the prevailing =view of the citizens of thsi country.
live with it
exactly! this is the lunacy of their ideas. they support democracy as long as they agree with it. if not, then people are "sheep", brainwashed and being tricked and lied to and the ruling party are Nazi's.
crazy.
Our system isn't perfect. However, I'm hopeful that people will speak up when their rights are being stepped on.
I'm also hopeful that the Judicial system will continue to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Which I why I posted this thread in the first place. If you feel this is wrong, write a letter.
http://www.senate.com/[/b][/quote]
just because you bring forth 3 criminals, and expect us to accept the release of one for your malicious purposes, does not mean the criminal you releases is any more free than the truth speaker you hold captive.
i really dont expect you to understand.
'tripping on real blood and strange sunshine'
:stout:
Last edited by Fletch XXX at Nov 30 2003, 09:34 PM
PornoDoggy
12-01-2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 12:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 12:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Nov 30 2003, 11:48 PM
If they grabbed Serge tomorrow and threw him in prison for sending coded terrorist messages on Cotac.com, would you believe them or would you be telling them to prove it?
Carrie, as your know,
Serge was born and raised in the Communist State and has his survival skill to match the skills of Founding Fathers.
The entire Oprano, GFY and Netpond will demand my release, because the first thing I'd do is to name everybody I met on the boards as my co-conspirators.
Why do you think we record IP's of every poster?
Because EVERYBODY transmit coded messages and I already made a deal with a prosecution
;-))))[/b][/quote]
I haven't been a co-consirator since the 60s. What a flashback ...
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 1 2003, 12:31 AM
And Serge ... no offense, but your analysis of what causes my concern couldn't be further off base. I don't relate this to porn at all. I oppose the erosion of civil rights, pure and simple. I don't believe that denying this individual the same rights as any other alleged criminal is going to materially impact whether New York or L.A. becomes a target.
and I say that the security of the country prevails over his right...
whata you gonna do about it?
;-))
we don't have to agree on it
;-)))
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:30 AM
Otherwise, Serge could be snatched up by the revenuers for his wine collection - that was a "done deal" once, too.
*************************************************
they gonna get KADOHAS!
I drink it and ONLY have few cases of Coppolla 2001 Merlot at $12 per bottle...hardly worth a trouble
;-)))
Dravyk
12-01-2003, 12:36 AM
We have gone from a country that spent over 30 years as the lead critic in rallying about human rights violations in other countries, to becoming a country that commits them in ours. I find nothing to be proud about in this.
Originally posted by JR@Dec 1 2003, 12:18 AM
dont hurt yourselves with all this information
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p......4¬Found=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7833-2002Dec4¬Found=true)
"A U.S. citizen accused of plotting to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in the United States must be granted access to an attorney to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant, a federal judge in New York ruled yesterday. "
That information seems to be a bit outdated. The Gov't appealed that lower court's decision.
Apparently, as of 11/23/2003 he still hadn't had access to a lawyer, judge or his family.
http://www.courierpress.com/ecp/editorials...2447636,00.html (http://www.courierpress.com/ecp/editorials/article/0,1626,ECP_768_2447636,00.html)
"Before Padilla could see a lawyer, he was declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to a brig in South Carolina where he has been held in solitary ever since - with no access to a lawyer, a judge or his family. "
Originally posted by Dravyk@Nov 30 2003, 09:44 PM
We have gone from a country that spent over 30 years as the lead critic in rallying about human rights violations in other countries, to becoming a country that commits them in ours. I find nothing to be proud about in this.
You mean as embarrassing as when the US was voted out of the UN Commission on Human Rights?
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 12:46 AM
"Before Padilla could see a lawyer, he was declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to a brig in South Carolina where he has been held in solitary ever since - with no access to a lawyer, a judge or his family. "
..and my heart bleeds for him.
KC, what should I do to wind your biological clock?
When you have your own family to worry about, you'll have less worries about dirty bomb terrorists...
and between us boys:
is Bush responcible for no terror acts since 9/11 on American siol or Thomas Jefferson and the entire judicial system?
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 12:46 AM
Before Padilla could see a lawyer, he was declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to a brig in South Carolina where he has been held in solitary ever since - with no access to a lawyer, a judge or his family.
And the govt is doing this, despite the bad publicity and understandable (but predictable) criticism of the administration....because...
He has bad breath?
Originally posted by KC+Nov 30 2003, 09:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Nov 30 2003, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@Dec 1 2003, 12:18 AM
dont hurt yourselves with all this information
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p......4¬Found=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7833-2002Dec4¬Found=true)
"A U.S. citizen accused of plotting to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in the United States must be granted access to an attorney to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant, a federal judge in New York ruled yesterday. "
That information seems to be a bit outdated. The Gov't appealed that lower court's decision.
Apparently, as of 11/23/2003 he still hadn't had access to a lawyer, judge or his family.
http://www.courierpress.com/ecp/editorials...2447636,00.html (http://www.courierpress.com/ecp/editorials/article/0,1626,ECP_768_2447636,00.html)
"Before Padilla could see a lawyer, he was declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to a brig in South Carolina where he has been held in solitary ever since - with no access to a lawyer, a judge or his family. "[/b][/quote]
I agree with you for the most part KC. my point is simply that the system is working as it should. something new was injected into the system and the courts are dealing with it under the watchful scrutiny of the entire planet.
Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Nov 30 2003, 09:50 PM
And the govt is doing this, despite the bad publicity and understandable (but predictable) criticism of the administration....because...
He has bad breath?
most seem to think its because he is Mexican.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:46 AM
and the reason we have political system today as we have is because Founding Fathers didn't beleive that common folk knows what's good for him.
Let common folk elect the representative and representative is the one whose voice is heard.
Ancient Greece had a true Democracy. Majority rules.
did it do much good to them? nope...Rome got them
PornoDoggy
12-01-2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 12:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 12:46 AM
Before Padilla could see a lawyer, he was declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to a brig in South Carolina where he has been held in solitary ever since - with no access to a lawyer, a judge or his family.
And the govt is doing this, despite the bad publicity and understandable (but predictable) criticism of the administration....because...
He has bad breath?[/b][/quote]
No, he's a terrorist. We know this - the governement has said so.
They would produce the proof, but they've misplaced it. It's apparently underneath the stash of Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam Hussein was ready to deploy on 45 minutes notice.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by JR+Dec 1 2003, 12:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Dec 1 2003, 12:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Diamond Jim@Nov 30 2003, 09:50 PM
And the govt is doing this, despite the bad publicity and understandable (but predictable) criticism of the administration....because...
He has bad breath?
most seem to think its because he is Mexican.[/b][/quote]
..and Moslem. He should convert to Judaism,
than the entire "Jewish Nation" will demand to send him a Jewish Lawyer
;-))))
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Dec 1 2003, 12:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Dec 1 2003, 12:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Diamond Jim@Dec 1 2003, 12:50 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 12:46 AM
Before Padilla could see a lawyer, he was declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to a brig in South Carolina where he has been held in solitary ever since - with no access to a lawyer, a judge or his family.
And the govt is doing this, despite the bad publicity and understandable (but predictable) criticism of the administration....because...
He has bad breath?
No, he's a terrorist. We know this - the governement has said so.
They would produce the proof, but they've misplaced it. It's apparently underneath the stash of Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam Hussein was ready to deploy on 45 minutes notice.[/b][/quote]
Fuckin' Government...they should have waited another 10 years ...
What kind of leaders we have?
They anticipate and ACT accordingly instead of waiting for Gallop polls results...shame, shame, I wanna be ruled by Gallop!
;-))))
Dravyk
12-01-2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by JR+Dec 1 2003, 12:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Dec 1 2003, 12:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Dravyk@Nov 30 2003, 09:44 PM
We have gone from a country that spent over 30 years as the lead critic in rallying about human rights violations in other countries, to becoming a country that commits them in ours. I find nothing to be proud about in this.
You mean as embarrassing as when the US was voted out of the UN Commission on Human Rights?[/b][/quote]
I am SO glad you brought that up, JR! Because it is another example of Bush's handy work, and one that CANNOT be defended by saying "it's just Bush after 9/11" as that happened PRIOR to 9/11.
Again, thank you! :inlove:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human/
May 3, 2001
UNITED NATIONS -- In what amounts to a stinging rebuke, the United States has been voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
This marks the first time the United States will not be represented on the commission since its inception in 1947. The commission investigates human-rights abuses around the world.
According to Reuters, some diplomats said they believed the Bush administration's opposition to the Kyoto climate change treaty as well as its insistence on a missile defense contributed to the loss.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:54 AM
some diplomats said they believed the Bush administration's opposition to the Kyoto climate change treaty as well as its insistence on a missile defense contributed to the loss
***************************************
which was VERY logical assumption as all those reasons have as much in common with human rights as
throwing the dog who farted out of the room into the fresh air while everybody in the room continue to inhale fart...
PornoDoggy
12-01-2003, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 12:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 12:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Dec 1 2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by -Diamond Jim@Dec 1 2003, 12:50 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 12:46 AM
Before Padilla could see a lawyer, he was declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to a brig in South Carolina where he has been held in solitary ever since - with no access to a lawyer, a judge or his family.
And the govt is doing this, despite the bad publicity and understandable (but predictable) criticism of the administration....because...
He has bad breath?
No, he's a terrorist. We know this - the governement has said so.
They would produce the proof, but they've misplaced it. It's apparently underneath the stash of Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam Hussein was ready to deploy on 45 minutes notice.
Fuckin' Government...they should have waited another 10 years ...
What kind of leaders we have?
They anticipate and ACT accordingly instead of waiting for Gallop polls results...shame, shame, I wanna be ruled by Gallop!
;-))))[/b][/quote]
Nice try - actually, that's a lie, it's pretty pathetic. I didn't say a thing about Gallup. I don't want to be ruled by Gallup.
I prefer the Constitution of the United States. As you so ineptly avoided, my point was that the same folks who are assuring us that this guy is a terrorist are the ones who told us about Saddam's vast stash of weapons.
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Dec 1 2003, 12:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Dec 1 2003, 12:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Diamond Jim@Dec 1 2003, 12:50 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 12:46 AM
Before Padilla could see a lawyer, he was declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to a brig in South Carolina where he has been held in solitary ever since - with no access to a lawyer, a judge or his family.
And the govt is doing this, despite the bad publicity and understandable (but predictable) criticism of the administration....because...
He has bad breath?
No, he's a terrorist. We know this - the governement has said so.
They would produce the proof, but they've misplaced it. It's apparently underneath the stash of Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam Hussein was ready to deploy on 45 minutes notice.[/b][/quote]
Right....so we are to believe they are holding him incommunicado because :
They just feel like it...
Ockham would be proud...
Dravyk
12-01-2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 01:02 AM
which was VERY logical assumption as all those reasons have as much in common with human rights as
throwing the dog who farted out of the room into the fresh air while everybody in the room continue to inhale fart...
Point taken. But you miss mine. Bush has been saying "fuck you" to the world since he was in office. That might sound like a good John Wayne attitude at first, but that's not how the "world game" is played.
He causes people who hate us to hate us more, people who work with us to not work with us (cause he won't work with them), and people who are our allies to even back away.
He feels that cause Daddy Bush was called a wimp, he has to be a global bully. Problem is, he's trying that with American citizens now.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And faster in the hands of imbeciles.
(... I donate five cents toward a spell checker!)
Last edited by Dravyk at Dec 1 2003, 01:12 AM
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 1 2003, 01:04 AM
Nice try - actually, that's a lie, it's pretty pathetic. I didn't say a thing about Gallup. I don't want to be ruled by Gallup.
I prefer the Constitution of the United States. As you so ineptly avoided, my point was that the same folks who are assuring us that this guy is a terrorist are the ones who told us about Saddam's vast stash of weapons.
pretty pathetic is your state of mind..
you don't beleive your own government and scared of it,
and I enjoy it's handy work.
:salute:
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by Dravyk@Dec 1 2003, 01:08 AM
Point taken. But you miss mine. Bush has been saying "fuck you" to the world since he was in office. That might sound like a good John Wayne attitude at first, but that's now how the "world game" is played.
He causes people who hate us to hate us more, people who work with us to not work with us (cause he won't work with them), and people who are our allies to even back away.
He feels that cause Daddy Bush was called a wimp, he has to be a global bully. Problem is, he's trying that with American citizens now.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And faster in the hands of imbeciles.
so? I do the same thing on GFY Bush does with the World.
And where are the smart GFYers now?
At Oprano...
Fuck the World....
America First
;-))))
sorry, alies, we love you, and we'll never ban you
;-0)))
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 1 2003, 01:04 AM
As you so ineptly avoided, my point was that the same folks who are assuring us that this guy is a terrorist are the ones who told us about Saddam's vast stash of weapons.
And the same people now giggling that no WMD were found are the same people that were insisting they would be found EVEN IF THE U.S. HAD TO PLANT THEM....
But the evil Bush administration didn't do that, either...
Paranoia must be fun....
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 12:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 12:46 AM
Before Padilla could see a lawyer, he was declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to a brig in South Carolina where he has been held in solitary ever since - with no access to a lawyer, a judge or his family.
And the govt is doing this, despite the bad publicity and understandable (but predictable) criticism of the administration....because...
He has bad breath?[/b][/quote]
Oral Hygiene is very important.
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 01:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 01:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Dec 1 2003, 01:04 AM
As you so ineptly avoided, my point was that the same folks who are assuring us that this guy is a terrorist are the ones who told us about Saddam's vast stash of weapons.
And the same people now giggling that no WMD were found are the same people that were insisting they would be found EVEN IF THE U.S. HAD TO PLANT THEM....
But the evil Bush administration didn't do that, either...
Paranoia must be fun....[/b][/quote]
Yet..
Does anyone care to make a wager that before the election there is a "Major Victory" in the war against terrorism?
- Saddam Captured
- Osama's Body Found
- WMD Found
- Terrorist Plot Foiled
Mr Bush did just go on a secret mission to Iraq!!!! He may have personally planted something ;))
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 01:20 AM
Yet..
Does anyone care to make a wager that before the election there is a "Major Victory" in the war against terrorism?
- Saddam Captured
- Osama's Body Found
- WMD Found
- Terrorist Plot Foiled
Mr Bush did just go on a secret mission to Iraq!!!! He may have personally planted something ;))
tik-tak-tik-tak...
;-)))
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 01:17 AM
Oral Hygiene is very important.
HA! It's been cleared up that the Bush administration is doing this because he's of Mexican descent. In addition, they love the bad publicity it brings to their doings and the understandable complaints and concerns that people like KC will have....
It COULDN'T be legitimate National Security issues.....it just COULDN'T....
After all....it's Bush!
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 01:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 01:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 01:17 AM
Oral Hygiene is very important.
HA! It's been cleared up that the Bush administration is doing this because he's of Mexican descent. In addition, they love the bad publicity it brings to their doings and the understandable complaints and concerns that people like KC will have....
It COULDN'T be legitimate National Security issues.....it just COULDN'T....
After all....it's Bush![/b][/quote]
My point is National Security Issue or not... American Citzens have rights. We'll see in a couple days what the appeals court says.
The system will sort it out. ;)
Dravyk
12-01-2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Dec 1 2003, 01:22 AM
It COULDN'T be legitimate National Security issues.....it just COULDN'T....
After all....it's Bush!
Your profound faith in believing everything the government spoon feeds you is most refreshing, DJ. Naive, but refreshing. :D
pornoman
12-01-2003, 01:17 AM
Im worried more about those poor baby seals!
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 01:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 01:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 01:17 AM
Oral Hygiene is very important.
HA! It's been cleared up that the Bush administration is doing this because he's of Mexican descent. In addition, they love the bad publicity it brings to their doings and the understandable complaints and concerns that people like KC will have....
It COULDN'T be legitimate National Security issues.....it just COULDN'T....
After all....it's Bush![/b][/quote]
..and if they can play KC like a fiddle-
they can play ANYBODY,
Carrie was right....
;-))))
Dravyk
12-01-2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 01:24 AM
American Citzens have rights.
The deuce you say!! :P
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by pornoman@Dec 1 2003, 01:25 AM
Im worried more about those poor baby seals!
and where is KC, may I ask?
KC, do American Baby Seals have rights?????
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Dravyk+Dec 1 2003, 01:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dravyk @ Dec 1 2003, 01:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Diamond Jim@Dec 1 2003, 01:22 AM
It COULDN'T be legitimate National Security issues.....it just COULDN'T....
After all....it's Bush!
Your profound faith in believing everything the government spoon feeds you is most refreshing, DJ. Naive, but refreshing. :D[/b][/quote]
I believe in the most logical and reasonable answer, Dravyk...
Are they holding him incommunicado for a good reason or aren't they?
Why this man? How did Zacarias Moussaoui get a trial and he's not even a citizen (if I recall)?
When in doubt, the simplest answer is usually correct. There is NO reason not to charge him and bring the case before the pubic...
UNLESS...there is a reason...
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 01:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 01:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--pornoman@Dec 1 2003, 01:25 AM
Im worried more about those poor baby seals!
and where is KC, may I ask?
KC, do American Baby Seals have rights?????[/b][/quote]
I don't think the Bill of Rights extend to baby Seals. However, the Endangered Species Act probably does!!
If they couldn't get enough juicy intel out of the guy after a year and a half without cousel, then they really suck.
A year and a half he's had time to heal all of his broken limbs TWICE!!!
Last edited by KC at Dec 1 2003, 01:32 AM
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 01:32 AM
If they couldn't get enough juicy intel out of the guy after a year and a half without cousel, then they really suck.
A year and a half he's had time to heal all of his broken limbs TWICE!!!
I say put him in a room with Confucy....
If he gets out sane...send him back to Mexico...
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 01:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 01:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Dravyk@Dec 1 2003, 01:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Diamond Jim@Dec 1 2003, 01:22 AM
It COULDN'T be legitimate National Security issues.....it just COULDN'T....
After all....it's Bush!
Your profound faith in believing everything the government spoon feeds you is most refreshing, DJ. Naive, but refreshing. :D
I believe in the most logical and reasonable answer, Dravyk...
Are they holding him incommunicado for a good reason or aren't they?
Why this man? How did Zacarias Moussaoui get a trial and he's not even a citizen (if I recall)?
When in doubt, the simplest answer is usually correct. There is NO reason not to charge him and bring the case before the pubic...
UNLESS...there is a reason...[/b][/quote]
These Thomas Jefferson quotes are handy!!
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be."
"[The People] are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty."
Dravyk
12-01-2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 01:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 01:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Dravyk@Dec 1 2003, 01:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Diamond Jim@Dec 1 2003, 01:22 AM
It COULDN'T be legitimate National Security issues.....it just COULDN'T....
After all....it's Bush!
Your profound faith in believing everything the government spoon feeds you is most refreshing, DJ. Naive, but refreshing. :D
I believe in the most logical and reasonable answer, Dravyk...
Are they holding him incommunicado for a good reason or aren't they?
Why this man? How did Zacarias Moussaoui get a trial and he's not even a citizen (if I recall)?
When in doubt, the simplest answer is usually correct. There is NO reason not to charge him and bring the case before the pubic...
UNLESS...there is a reason...[/b][/quote]
I honestly like someone who uses logic, as that is on such short supply in general, DJ.
That said ... and while your questions have merit taken on their own ... when other questions of history are put to it, water them down ...
Has our government ever lied to us before that we later found out about? Where they considered wrong for having done so? Do governments in general lie and do this same thing?
... I could go on, but just the few mentioned give me a healthy case of suspicion and more than a reasonable doubt. Time will tell.
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 01:36 AM
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be."
"[The People] are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty."
Great quotes!
And I take them to mean we should be vigilant in locking up terrorists, protect our National Security, and not let ignorance about people's freedom affect our liberty...
Dravyk
12-01-2003, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Dec 1 2003, 01:34 AM
I say put him in a room with Confucy....
If he gets out sane...send him back to Mexico...
I'd get a patent on that! :D
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Dravyk@Dec 1 2003, 01:40 AM
Has our government ever lied to us before that we later found out about? Where they considered wrong for having done so? Do governments in general lie and do this same thing?
... I could go on, but just the few mentioned give me a healthy case of suspicion and more than a reasonable doubt. Time will tell.
C'mon, Dravyk....who are you talking to? I despise government FAR more than you and would bet my posting record reflects same... :ph34r:
The government lies all the time. That is not the question....
However, goverment lies for a PURPOSE....good or bad....
What purpose do they have for keeping this individual without due process? What are they gaining? What are they receiving in exchange for the heat of keeping a US citizen without council or trial?
We can believe they have a very good reason for doing this....and ONLY to this guy (well...maybe a couple others)...
Or we can believe it's because Mexican-Hating Space Aliens have taken over the White House and are keeping him until he reveals the Taco Bell secret sauce recipe...
If you're gonna be paranoid, why limit yourself?
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 01:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 01:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 01:36 AM
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be."
"[The People] are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty."
Great quotes!
And I take them to mean we should be vigilant in locking up terrorists, protect our National Security, and not let ignorance about people's freedom affect our liberty...[/b][/quote]
I was wondering if you were taking that position just to disagree. Thanks for verifying it!! ;)
Try to spin this T. Jefferson quote:
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
I'm glad my ACLU dues are paid up!
http://archive.aclu.org/court/padilla.pdf
Here's a nice paragraph:
One hundred and fifty years ago, the Supreme Court emphatically rejected the notion that due process safeguards could be ignored in the midst of a national emergency. To the contrary, it held that an American citizen arrested during the Civil War for aiding the enemy had a right to be tried in the civilian courts, so long as those courts were open and functioning. See Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4Wall.) 2 (1866). The Court’s language and logic are just as pertinent today.
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people,
equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection
all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No
doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by
the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during
any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads
directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it
is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the
powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence.
Dravyk
12-01-2003, 02:55 AM
The government lies all the time. That is not the question....
However, goverment lies for a PURPOSE....good or bad....
Ok, my friend, now who do YOU think you're talking to? :)
I didn't know we were debating whether the government thinks it has a reason, duh! Everybody has a reason. A beneficial one, a manevolent one, a delusion one. Insane people and sane people alike have reasons and so do governments -- constantly.
I thought the discussion was one was it a justifiable reason and, whatever the answer to that was yes or no, was it one that it should supercede our laws and our liberties?
As for paranoia, sorry, I don't do that. Enough REAL shit to be genuinely scared of in this life, thank you. :)
KC ... :okthumb:
pornoman
12-01-2003, 03:20 AM
My favorite Thomas Jefferson quote..
"Honey... send in the slave and close the door..this might take a while.."
Originally posted by pornoman@Dec 1 2003, 03:28 AM
My favorite Thomas Jefferson quote..
"Honey... send in the slave and close the door..this might take a while.."
Here are a couple of my favorite George Bush quotes:
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."
"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right."
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
Reading all this made me wonder .....
Would you kill for a Nobel Peace Prize?
:blink:
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 02:20 AM
I was wondering if you were taking that position just to disagree. Thanks for verifying it!! ;)
Try to spin this T. Jefferson quote:
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Jefferson was the first HIPPY of his time
;-)))
Torone
12-01-2003, 07:27 AM
@#$%$#^& Liberals don't know or understand the difference between criminals and POW's!
Personally, I think he should be shot as a spy.
Nice try, Comrade; but no cigar...
Oh, and no use quoting things like Jefferson or the Federalist Papers, or the Declaration Of Independence. Important, they are; in the Constitution, they are NOT.
Last edited by Torone at Dec 1 2003, 06:39 AM
Carrie
12-01-2003, 08:19 AM
Serge, my statements here have nothing to do with porn and everything to do with my life in the future and my childrens' lives.
I keep bringing it down to adult biz analogies because that's the one thing we all have in common and as such everyone should easily understand those analogies.
DJ, you're trusting that the gov't knows better than we do with your "they MUST have a good reason" theory. I'm sure Matrix thinks they had a good reason to sell us all out too, but that doesn't mean it really *was* a good reason or it was the right thing to do - and their "reason" is certainly not good enough to violate our privacy.
I'm sure Janet Reno thought she had a "good enough reason" as well when she gave the order to storm Waco and slaughter children.
Every day thousands of men and women think they've got a "good enough reason" to steal from their employers...
I don't think that the gov't knows better than I do. Hell, just look at how they take my money and spend it every year.
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 1 2003, 07:35 AM
@#$%$#^& Liberals don't know or understand the difference between criminals and POW's!
First of all, I'm not a liberal.
Secondly, this guy was ARRESTED by the civillian police on US soil for a "material witness warrant".
Last time I checked the Police didn't have authority to capture POWs.
Try reading the whole thread and staying caught up before you pipe up.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 08:24 AM
I'm sure Janet Reno thought she had a "good enough reason" as well when she gave the order to storm Waco and slaughter children.
************************************************** *********
is that a fact or your OPINION?
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 08:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 08:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 1 2003, 07:35 AM
@#$%$#^& Liberals don't know or understand the difference between criminals and POW's!
First of all, I'm not a liberal.
Secondly, this guy was ARRESTED by the civillian police on US soil for a "material witness warrant".
Last time I checked the Police didn't have authority to capture POWs.
Try reading the whole thread and staying caught up before you pipe up.[/b][/quote]
check your facts again and Police arrests of German collaborators in NY during the WWII
Carrie
12-01-2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:32 AM
I'm sure Janet Reno thought she had a "good enough reason" as well when she gave the order to storm Waco and slaughter children.
************************************************** *********
is that a fact or your OPINION?
What exactly?
That Janet Reno gave the order to go in to Waco, that children were slaughtered, or that Reno had a good reason?
The first two are facts, the third would be Janet's opinion, not mine.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Carrie+Dec 1 2003, 08:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Dec 1 2003, 08:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:32 AM
I'm sure Janet Reno thought she had a "good enough reason" as well when she gave the order to storm Waco and slaughter children.
************************************************** *********
is that a fact or your OPINION?
What exactly?
That Janet Reno gave the order to go in to Waco, that children were slaughtered, or that Reno had a good reason?
The first two are facts, the third would be Janet's opinion, not mine.[/b][/quote]
Children were slaughtered by their parents and David what's his name?
nice try manipulating facts, Carrie
;-)))
Carrie
12-01-2003, 08:43 AM
Serge do you honestly believe that *all* of those children were murdered at the hands of their parents, and that *none* of them died from all of the bullets being fired into the building or from the fires, etc?
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 07:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 07:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 08:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:32 AM
I'm sure Janet Reno thought she had a "good enough reason" as well when she gave the order to storm Waco and slaughter children.
************************************************** *********
is that a fact or your OPINION?
What exactly?
That Janet Reno gave the order to go in to Waco, that children were slaughtered, or that Reno had a good reason?
The first two are facts, the third would be Janet's opinion, not mine.
Children were slaughtered by their parents and David what's his name?
nice try manipulating facts, Carrie
;-)))[/b][/quote]
That's the government's version; of course the government lied and said they didn't use any flammable ordinance and that no military was present.
You, Serge, should know better than the rest of us that 75% of what the government tells us is lies when they do something right, and 100% of what the government tells us is lies when they do something bad.
And if Waco doesn't work for you, try Ruby Ridge -- they butchered a man's whole family because the FBI Sniper Team needed some practice.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 08:51 AM
Serge do you honestly believe that *all* of those children were murdered at the hands of their parents, and that *none* of them died from all of the bullets being fired into the building or from the fires, etc?
yes, I do....and unless you can prove otherwise,
your argument is as priceless as a speculation on how many devils can dance on the tip of the needle
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 07:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 07:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 08:51 AM
Serge do you honestly believe that *all* of those children were murdered at the hands of their parents, and that *none* of them died from all of the bullets being fired into the building or from the fires, etc?
yes, I do....and unless you can prove otherwise,
your argument is as priceless as a speculation on how many devils can dance on the tip of the needle[/b][/quote]
That's an interesting position, Serge, because this is how I remember it:
1. Everything was calm, no fires.
2. Reno's jack-booted thugs smash tanks into the compound and fire smoke grenades everywhere.
3. Fires break out and everyone in there dies.
4. The government says no military personnel were present.
5. Delta Force operatives say they were present.
6. The government says no flammable ordinance was used.
7. Flammable ordinance is found to have been used.
Well, anyway, I guess we can all agree to disagree, but I don't trust bureaucrats any more than I trust Muslim Terrorists. I'll use the former to kill off the latter, but that doesn't mean the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 08:54 AM
Serge, because this is how I remember it:
***************************************
and how old were you when it happened?
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:02 AM
Serge, because this is how I remember it:
***************************************
and how old were you when it happened?
In my 20s, but what has that got to do with anything?
Carrie
12-01-2003, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:53 AM
yes, I do....
Serge I love this country as much as you do. I understand that our gov't is far better than the system you came from. But that doesn't mean you should have blind faith in it. Our country is great *because* we have the right to question, the right to speak out without fear of being shot, and the right to change things.
Politicians lie. Gov't is made up of politicians. Blindly trusting the gov't to tell you the truth 100% of the time will make our system no better than Russia's was.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Buff+Dec 1 2003, 09:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Dec 1 2003, 09:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:02 AM
Serge, because this is how I remember it:
***************************************
and how old were you when it happened?
In my 20s, but what has that got to do with anything?[/b][/quote]
and how old are you now?
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Carrie+Dec 1 2003, 09:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Dec 1 2003, 09:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:53 AM
yes, I do....
Serge I love this country as much as you do. I understand that our gov't is far better than the system you came from. But that doesn't mean you should have blind faith in it. Our country is great *because* we have the right to question, the right to speak out without fear of being shot, and the right to change things.
Politicians lie. Gov't is made up of politicians. Blindly trusting the gov't to tell you the truth 100% of the time will make our system no better than Russia's was.[/b][/quote]
true, no arguments from me here...
sarettah
12-01-2003, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 08:51 AM
Serge do you honestly believe that *all* of those children were murdered at the hands of their parents, and that *none* of them died from all of the bullets being fired into the building or from the fires, etc?
Just so folks remember what people are actually capable of:
In Guyana 1978, a cult led by Jim Jones chose to commit suicide:
"914 died: 638 adults and 276 children. Some sources say 911 died. Most appear to have committed suicide by drinking a grape drink laced with cyanide and a number of sedatives, including liquid Valium, Penegram and chloral hydrate. Some sources say it was Kool-Aid; others say FlaVor-Aid®. Other victims appear to have been murdered by poison injection."
So, is a group of people led by a charismatic leader capable of killing their children?
most definitely.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm
"During the late 1970's, Jones had been abusing prescription drugs and appears to have become increasingly paranoid. Rumors of human rights abuses circulated. As in most high-intensity religious groups, there was a considerable flow of people joining and leaving the group. Tim Stoen, the Temple attorney and right-hand man to Jones left to form Concerned Relatives who claimed that Jonestown was being run like a concentration camp, and that people were being held there against their will. This motivated Leo Ryan, a Congressman, to visit Jonestown in 1978-NOV for a personal inspection. At first, the visit went well. Later, on NOV-18, about 16 Temple members decided that they wanted to leave Jonestown with the visitors. This came as quite a blow to both Jones and the rest of the project. While Ryan and the others were waiting at Port Kiatuma airfield, the local airstrip, some heavily armed members of the Temple's security guards arrived and started shooting. Congressman Ryan and four others were killed; three were members of the press; the other was a person from Jonestown who wanted to leave. 11 were wounded. Fearing retribution, the project members discuss their options. They reach a consensus to commit group suicide. 914 died: 638 adults and 276 children. Some sources say 911 died. Most appear to have committed suicide by drinking a grape drink laced with cyanide and a number of sedatives, including liquid Valium, Penegram and chloral hydrate. Some sources say it was Kool-Aid; others say FlaVor-Aid®. Other victims appear to have been murdered by poison injection. The Guyanese coroner said that hundreds of bodies showed needle marks, indicating foul play. Still other victims were shot. A very few fled into the jungle and survived. The bodies were in a state of extensive decay when the authorities arrived. There was no time to conduct a thorough investigation"
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 08:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 08:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:07 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:02 AM
Serge, because this is how I remember it:
***************************************
and how old were you when it happened?
In my 20s, but what has that got to do with anything?
and how old are you now?[/b][/quote]
10 years older.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Buff+Dec 1 2003, 09:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Dec 1 2003, 09:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by -Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:07 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:02 AM
Serge, because this is how I remember it:
***************************************
and how old were you when it happened?
In my 20s, but what has that got to do with anything?
and how old are you now?
10 years older.[/b][/quote]
and still in your 20's...
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 08:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 08:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by -Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:07 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:02 AM
Serge, because this is how I remember it:
***************************************
and how old were you when it happened?
In my 20s, but what has that got to do with anything?
and how old are you now?
10 years older.
and still in your 20's...[/b][/quote]
I wish. I am a young 32. My youthful good looks are the result of good living!
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:30 AM
I wish. I am a young 32. My youthful good looks are the result of good living!
exactly my point...
the government actions are responcible for your good living,
just say:
Thank you, US Government, and enjoy your life...
I LOVE when my opponents make points for me
;-)))
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 08:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 08:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:30 AM
I wish. I am a young 32. My youthful good looks are the result of good living!
exactly my point...
the government actions are responcible for your good living,
just say:
Thank you, US Government, and enjoy your life...
I LOVE when my opponents make points for me
;-)))[/b][/quote]
Ha! The government tried to destroy my good looks by sending into combat zones all over the planet. They taxed me, trying to limit how much personal hygiene products I could afford!
I have my stunning good looks DESPITE the government.
All that, and I play a good game of chess.
Carrie
12-01-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 09:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 09:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:30 AM
I wish. I am a young 32. My youthful good looks are the result of good living!
exactly my point...
the government actions are responcible for your good living,
just say:
Thank you, US Government, and enjoy your life...
I LOVE when my opponents make points for me
;-)))[/b][/quote]
The gov't isn't responsible for his good life - he is. It was his choices that gave him that good life, the gov't didn't choose for him.
He could have chosen to sit on his ass and collect a welfare check that he wastes on beer before he gets home, live in poverty and not have a dime to his name - would that be because of the gov't too? Nope, it's HIS choice.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:40 AM
Ha! The government tried to destroy my good looks by sending into combat zones all over the planet. They taxed me, trying to limit how much personal hygiene products I could afford!
I have my stunning good looks DESPITE the government.
All that, and I play a good game of chess.
you are just an INGRATE!
;-)))
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 09:41 AM
The gov't isn't responsible for his good life - he is. It was his choices that gave him that good life, the gov't didn't choose for him.
He could have chosen to sit on his ass and collect a welfare check that he wastes on beer before he gets home, live in poverty and not have a dime to his name - would that be because of the gov't too? Nope, it's HIS choice.
and WHO gave him this choice?
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 09:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 09:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 09:41 AM
The gov't isn't responsible for his good life - he is. It was his choices that gave him that good life, the gov't didn't choose for him.
He could have chosen to sit on his ass and collect a welfare check that he wastes on beer before he gets home, live in poverty and not have a dime to his name - would that be because of the gov't too? Nope, it's HIS choice.
and WHO gave him this choice?[/b][/quote]
Thomas Jefferson!! ;)
Carrie
12-01-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 09:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 09:47 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 09:41 AM
The gov't isn't responsible for his good life - he is. It was his choices that gave him that good life, the gov't didn't choose for him.
He could have chosen to sit on his ass and collect a welfare check that he wastes on beer before he gets home, live in poverty and not have a dime to his name - would that be because of the gov't too? Nope, it's HIS choice.
and WHO gave him this choice?
Thomas Jefferson!! ;)[/b][/quote]
Hehehe :okthumb:
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 09:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 09:47 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 09:41 AM
The gov't isn't responsible for his good life - he is. It was his choices that gave him that good life, the gov't didn't choose for him.
He could have chosen to sit on his ass and collect a welfare check that he wastes on beer before he gets home, live in poverty and not have a dime to his name - would that be because of the gov't too? Nope, it's HIS choice.
and WHO gave him this choice?
Thomas Jefferson!! ;)[/b][/quote]
is Buff decendant of his slave girlfreind?
;-)))
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 09:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -KC@Dec 1 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 09:47 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 09:41 AM
The gov't isn't responsible for his good life - he is. It was his choices that gave him that good life, the gov't didn't choose for him.
He could have chosen to sit on his ass and collect a welfare check that he wastes on beer before he gets home, live in poverty and not have a dime to his name - would that be because of the gov't too? Nope, it's HIS choice.
and WHO gave him this choice?
Thomas Jefferson!! ;)
is Buff decendant of his slave girlfreind?
;-)))[/b][/quote]
He could be the illegitimate love child of Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress! :)
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 09:52 AM
He could be the illegitimate love child of Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress! :)
great, we finally agreed on something in this thread
;-)))
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 09:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 09:52 AM
He could be the illegitimate love child of Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress! :)
great, we finally agreed on something in this thread
;-)))[/b][/quote]
Even a broken clock is right twice a day!! ;)
It was just a matter of time until you agreed with me! ;))
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 10:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 09:55 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--KC@Dec 1 2003, 09:52 AM
He could be the illegitimate love child of Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress! :)
great, we finally agreed on something in this thread
;-)))
Even a broken clock is right twice a day!! ;)
It was just a matter of time until you agreed with me! ;))[/b][/quote]
I pride myself on having fkexable mind and ability to listen to the arguments
;-))
now....which side of the family Buff has inhereted his dick from?
This is a $64,000 question
;-)))
Torone
12-01-2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Dravyk+Nov 30 2003, 11:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dravyk @ Nov 30 2003, 11:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Dec 1 2003, 12:49 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Dravyk@Nov 30 2003, 09:44 PM
We have gone from a country that spent over 30 years as the lead critic in rallying about human rights violations in other countries, to becoming a country that commits them in ours. I find nothing to be proud about in this.
You mean as embarrassing as when the US was voted out of the UN Commission on Human Rights?
I am SO glad you brought that up, JR! Because it is another example of Bush's handy work, and one that CANNOT be defended by saying "it's just Bush after 9/11" as that happened PRIOR to 9/11.
Again, thank you! :inlove:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human/
May 3, 2001
UNITED NATIONS -- In what amounts to a stinging rebuke, the United States has been voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
This marks the first time the United States will not be represented on the commission since its inception in 1947. The commission investigates human-rights abuses around the world.
According to Reuters, some diplomats said they believed the Bush administration's opposition to the Kyoto climate change treaty as well as its insistence on a missile defense contributed to the loss.[/b][/quote]
Er, uh, I believe that Sudan was placed in our seat there before Bush took office...
Take a good long look at the UN; and tell me what you see...an organization dedicated to world freedom, or one aiming at a world socialist (at the least) state.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 1 2003, 10:22 AM
Take a good long look at the UN; and tell me what you see...
I only see Buff with the dick of the unknown origin and twice circumsized Labret....
is it me or something really wrong with UN?
Torone
12-01-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 01:20 AM
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
The best argument you'll ever find for term limits...
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 09:09 AM
Politicians lie. Gov't is made up of politicians. Blindly trusting the gov't to tell you the truth 100% of the time will make our system no better than Russia's was.
Well, DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH....
Why do a couple people want to make it out like the goverment lies and that's the big fucking clue as to why this guy is being held?
Torone
12-01-2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 07:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 07:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 1 2003, 07:35 AM
@#$%$#^& Liberals don't know or understand the difference between criminals and POW's!
First of all, I'm not a liberal.
Secondly, this guy was ARRESTED by the civillian police on US soil for a "material witness warrant".
Last time I checked the Police didn't have authority to capture POWs.
Try reading the whole thread and staying caught up before you pipe up.[/b][/quote]
Oh? What are y'all calling yourselves these days? I don't know where you are; but I would bet that your congresspeople are all Libs...I guess you'd like to be called Progressives or Moderates? You know how I (and an increasing number of Americans) feel about the Socialist side.
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 10:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 09:09 AM
Politicians lie. Gov't is made up of politicians. Blindly trusting the gov't to tell you the truth 100% of the time will make our system no better than Russia's was.
Well, DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH....
Why do a couple people want to make it out like the goverment lies and that's the big fucking clue as to why this guy is being held?[/b][/quote]
Trust me, I'm from the Government.
Stern said it best this morning
Give Iraq back to Hussein
its a mess, we can't make it right
sure he had mass graves
but its better than what we are doing
He's the only person who can run that country
Originally posted by Torone+Dec 1 2003, 10:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Torone @ Dec 1 2003, 10:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -KC@Dec 1 2003, 07:30 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 1 2003, 07:35 AM
@#$%$#^& Liberals don't know or understand the difference between criminals and POW's!
First of all, I'm not a liberal.
Secondly, this guy was ARRESTED by the civillian police on US soil for a "material witness warrant".
Last time I checked the Police didn't have authority to capture POWs.
Try reading the whole thread and staying caught up before you pipe up.
Oh? What are y'all calling yourselves these days? I don't know where you are; but I would bet that your congresspeople are all Libs...I guess you'd like to be called Progressives or Moderates? You know how I (and an increasing number of Americans) feel about the Socialist side.[/b][/quote]
3rd post in the thread and you're already resorting to Name calling?
Someone who speaks up to defend the constitution and make the government explain itself does not an advocate of socialism make.
I'd say I'm a Libertarian. I generally want less government. I want them to stay out of my business. The government is suppose to work for the people.
A government that respects my rights guaranteed by the Constitution is the only government I want.
pornoman
12-01-2003, 10:47 AM
The order was to "arrest" the people in Waco, Reno thought they said "roast" them.
This is well documented..
Remember, Richard Prior said that when he was looking for Justice in prison, he found out it was Just Us!
Fight the power..
KC Ill buy you some Malcom X books, maybe you can get something started with the Eskimo's up there.. I find the term Eskimo Pie quite racist!
Originally posted by pornoman@Dec 1 2003, 10:55 AM
The order was to "arrest" the people in Waco, Reno thought they said "roast" them.
This is well documented..
Remember, Richard Prior said that when he was looking for Justice in prison, he found out it was Just Us!
Fight the power..
KC Ill buy you some Malcom X books, maybe you can get something started with the Eskimo's up there.. I find the term Eskimo Pie quite racist!
Demanding that a fellow American Citizen (suspected terrorist or not) gets the rights granted to him by the 5th and 6th amendments is not too much to ask.
Torone
12-01-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 09:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 09:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Torone@Dec 1 2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by -KC@Dec 1 2003, 07:30 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 1 2003, 07:35 AM
@#$%$#^& Liberals don't know or understand the difference between criminals and POW's!
First of all, I'm not a liberal.
Secondly, this guy was ARRESTED by the civillian police on US soil for a "material witness warrant".
Last time I checked the Police didn't have authority to capture POWs.
Try reading the whole thread and staying caught up before you pipe up.
Oh? What are y'all calling yourselves these days? I don't know where you are; but I would bet that your congresspeople are all Libs...I guess you'd like to be called Progressives or Moderates? You know how I (and an increasing number of Americans) feel about the Socialist side.
3rd post in the thread and you're already resorting to Name calling?
Someone who speaks up to defend the constitution and make the government explain itself does not an advocate of socialism make.
I'd say I'm a Libertarian. I generally want less government. I want them to stay out of my business. The government is suppose to work for the people.
A government that respects my rights guaranteed by the Constitution is the only government I want.[/b][/quote]
Sounds to me like you think they shoud release a guy who actually was conspiring to turn loose a 'dirty bomb' somewhere in this country...I stand by my statement that he should have been shot as a spy. I'll go a little further and say that all these 'enemy combatants' should also be shot as spies, since they weren't wearing uniforms.
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 1 2003, 10:59 AM
Sounds to me like you think they shoud release a guy who actually was conspiring to turn loose a 'dirty bomb' somewhere in this country...
I never said they should release him. I think this guy is a scumbag motherfucker.
My respect for the Constitution is greater than my hatred for this waste of flesh.
My only grievance with this situation is that an American Born US Citizen who was arrested on US soil has been held for 18 months without access to legal counsel.
I guess you missed the first 2 pages of the thread where this was discussed at great length.
PornoDoggy
12-01-2003, 11:07 AM
Holy rhetorical overkill, Batman ... what a clusterfuck this has become.
Good to see that my favorite faithful follower of Brother John Birch is still around :) KC, you have to remember that Torone advocates shooting the enemy - and in his mind, a John McCain Republican is suspect, any Democrat is probably a tratior.
Amazing how scumbags hiding behind the 2nd Ammendment can suddenly become victims absolved of their responsibility for the actions they took that caused government action.
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 08:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 08:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:40 AM
Ha! The government tried to destroy my good looks by sending into combat zones all over the planet. They taxed me, trying to limit how much personal hygiene products I could afford!
I have my stunning good looks DESPITE the government.
All that, and I play a good game of chess.
you are just an INGRATE!
;-)))[/b][/quote]
I am grateful that we all went to that Indian place to eat last time I saw you! I'd be grateful to go there again!
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 1 2003, 08:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 1 2003, 08:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -KC@Dec 1 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 09:47 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Dec 1 2003, 09:41 AM
The gov't isn't responsible for his good life - he is. It was his choices that gave him that good life, the gov't didn't choose for him.
He could have chosen to sit on his ass and collect a welfare check that he wastes on beer before he gets home, live in poverty and not have a dime to his name - would that be because of the gov't too? Nope, it's HIS choice.
and WHO gave him this choice?
Thomas Jefferson!! ;)
is Buff decendant of his slave girlfreind?
;-)))[/b][/quote]
Waiting on the DNA results as we speak -- it could explain my affinity for darker-skinned women ;)
Torone
12-01-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 10:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 10:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 1 2003, 10:59 AM
Sounds to me like you think they shoud release a guy who actually was conspiring to turn loose a 'dirty bomb' somewhere in this country...
I never said they should release him. I think this guy is a scumbag motherfucker.
My respect for the Constitution is greater than my hatred for this waste of flesh.
My only grievance with this situation is that an American Born US Citizen who was arrested on US soil has been held for 18 months without access to legal counsel.
I guess you missed the first 2 pages of the thread where this was discussed at great length.[/b][/quote]
I read it...I'd like you to quote something like the Constitution rather than Liberal sources.
Carrie
12-01-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 1 2003, 11:21 AM
I read it...I'd like you to quote something like the Constitution rather than Liberal sources.
Jefferson is liberal? :huh:
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Buff+Dec 1 2003, 11:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Dec 1 2003, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 08:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Dec 1 2003, 09:40 AM
Ha! The government tried to destroy my good looks by sending into combat zones all over the planet. They taxed me, trying to limit how much personal hygiene products I could afford!
I have my stunning good looks DESPITE the government.
All that, and I play a good game of chess.
you are just an INGRATE!
;-)))
I am grateful that we all went to that Indian place to eat last time I saw you! I'd be grateful to go there again![/b][/quote]
won't happen
;-(((
the place is closed
;-(((
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Carrie+Dec 1 2003, 11:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Dec 1 2003, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 1 2003, 11:21 AM
I read it...I'd like you to quote something like the Constitution rather than Liberal sources.
Jefferson is liberal? :huh:[/b][/quote]
he is...conservatives whites don't father black children
';_))
Torone
12-01-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Carrie+Dec 1 2003, 10:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Dec 1 2003, 10:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 1 2003, 11:21 AM
I read it...I'd like you to quote something like the Constitution rather than Liberal sources.
Jefferson is liberal? :huh:[/b][/quote]
No. The media and the ACLU are.
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 10:28 AM
won't happen
;-(((
the place is closed
;-(((
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
That sucks :(
Originally posted by Torone+Dec 1 2003, 11:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Torone @ Dec 1 2003, 11:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I read it...I'd like you to quote something like the Constitution rather than Liberal sources.[/b]
Seriously, Please read the first page of this thread.
Originally posted by -KC@Nov 30 2003, 06:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Nov 30 2003, 05:55 PM
I will not, I swear, I will not call anybody names but...
people, you still don't get whom are you dealing with...
you and your porno agenda makes me laugh...those who perished from Kantor Fitzgerald made more money than thisa entire baord and industry combined.
The ruthless enemy upon us will take EVERYTHING we muster throwing at them.
oh well....let's have another useless demonstration of solidarity with terrorists...
This isn't about a porno agenda. This is about one of my own elected officials taking away rights guaranteed to me since 1791. These officials took an oath to preserve my Constitutional rights when they took office.
This guy is a criminal and PROBABLY belongs behind bars anyway. However, disregarding the 5th and 6th amendments for Citizens it unexcusable. In fact, it puts the public at a greater risk, because eventually this guy will get out because the gov't has fucked up this case so much.
5th Amendment
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.
6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
[/quote]
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Buff+Dec 1 2003, 11:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Dec 1 2003, 11:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 10:28 AM
won't happen
;-(((
the place is closed
;-(((
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
That sucks :([/b][/quote]
oh well...we found a few replacements, not to worry!
;_)))
Torone
12-01-2003, 11:57 AM
Quotes are getting too long...
Yeah, to one who considers the guy a common criminal, those might apply; BUT he is not a common criminal. He is an enemy spy/combatant; and as such is dealt with in a different system.
As for Mousawi (sp?), unfortunately, he was placed into the civilian system. Once in that system, he is subject to things like grand juries, etc. Did you know that information obtained by a grand jury is absolutely inviolate? You can go to prison for revealing it.
:salute:
If you truly are a Libertarian, how would you be dealing with a situation such as this. If you don't have an answer, then your criticism should be considered as destructive, not constructive. I know, you don't believe that anyone other than yourself should presume to judge your statements, right? Maybe you are closer to Liberal than you think... :biglaugh:
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 1 2003, 12:05 PM
Quotes are getting too long...
Yeah, to one who considers the guy a common criminal, those might apply; BUT he is not a common criminal. He is an enemy spy/combatant; and as such is dealt with in a different system.
The Constitution doesn't differentiate between a "common criminal" and a spy. It's very clear that ALL Americans are granted these rights.
The term "Enemy Combatant" doesn't appear in the Constitution or even in the Patriot Act.
These arguments are getting old.
Here's the bottom line.
a) I believe the way this situation was handled was un-Constitutional.
B) A district court also felt the Gov't was violating Padilla's rights.
c) The Gov't appealed that decision.
d) A 3 panel court in New York recently agreed to hear the appeal and will likely rule in the next few days.
I hope that they don't end up having to release this guy because of a little technicality like.... violating his rights for a year and a half.
Torone
12-01-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 11:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 11:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 1 2003, 12:05 PM
Quotes are getting too long...
Yeah, to one who considers the guy a common criminal, those might apply; BUT he is not a common criminal. He is an enemy spy/combatant; and as such is dealt with in a different system.
The Constitution doesn't differentiate between a "common criminal" and a spy. It's very clear that ALL Americans are granted these rights.
The term "Enemy Combatant" doesn't appear in the Constitution or even in the Patriot Act.
These arguments are getting old.
Here's the bottom line.
a) I believe the way this situation was handled was un-Constitutional.
B) A district court also felt the Gov't was violating Padilla's rights.
c) The Gov't appealed that decision.
d) A 3 panel court in New York recently agreed to hear the appeal and will likely rule in the next few days.
I hope that they don't end up having to release this guy because of a little technicality like.... violating his rights for a year and a half.[/b][/quote]
Just let me violate his 'rights' once...Please? :uzi:
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 1 2003, 12:18 PM
Just let me violate his 'rights' once...Please? :uzi:
I would be more understanding if he were shot and killed during his arrest than held for a year and a half without counsel! ;)
pornoman
12-01-2003, 12:29 PM
KC,
Maybe an auction?
You could raise funds and help him out..
Originally posted by pornoman@Dec 1 2003, 12:37 PM
KC,
Maybe an auction?
You could raise funds and help him out..
10% of your 35 posts were used to mock me! ;) I feel so special :P
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 12:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 12:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--pornoman@Dec 1 2003, 12:37 PM
KC,
Maybe an auction?
You could raise funds and help him out..
10% of your 35 posts were used to mock me! ;) I feel so special :P[/b][/quote]
guys, guys, please stop trashing each other over Brad';s ass
;-)))
Torone
12-01-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 11:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 1 2003, 12:18 PM
Just let me violate his 'rights' once...Please? :uzi:
I would be more understanding if he were shot and killed during his arrest than held for a year and a half without counsel! ;)[/b][/quote]
I guess you'll just have to call me cold, hard, and callous; because I see him as a spy who is entitled to absolutely no consideration whatsoever...and with that, I shall return to editing/optimizing/babysitting (my old lady is down with the flu and I'm taking care of her and the granddaughter).
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 1 2003, 12:48 PM
I guess you'll just have to call me cold, hard, and callous; because I see him as a spy who is entitled to absolutely no consideration whatsoever...and with that, I shall return to editing/optimizing/babysitting (my old lady is down with the flu and I'm taking care of her and the granddaughter).
fair enough.
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 01:43 PM
Not many US citizens would like to see the Constitution get trampled on. However, if taking a piss on the original document stops this guy from somehow causing a dirty bomb to go off in Times Square, I'm all for it....
Paranoia works both ways. For you people that are so afraid the govt is "lying" about why they are keeping him, how about being paranoid that if he has contact with the outside world he can set into motion a chain of events that cause a dirty bomb to go off? Maybe he has a secret cell just waiting for his command! Booga booga booga!
A country has a right to protect itself from attack, just like a person. In some cases, the threat may be extreme enough to deny due process. If someone is aiming a gun at you and you are reasonably certain he's going to fire.....do you shoot him first or worry about his "rights"? I agree with KC. They should have just shot him.
Let's make it personal....
The govt discovers Padilla is plotting to kill Carrie and her family with a bomb. They show Carrie some evidence of what he was planning, but there is no trial by jury so his peers can decide if Carries' life is REALLY in danger. How concerned is Carrie going to be if the govt holds this guy FOREVER without due process?
My bet = ZERO
If Carrie REALLY cares and is going to insist the guy who was plotting to kill her and her family be given a fair trial so that MAYBE he can get out or have someone else do his work for him....she's a better citizen than me!
I'd say "Thanks, Mr. Bush! Any other people you find plotting to kill me....lock those fuckers up forever, too! Or better yet....shoot them in the head...."
It's easy to wax philosophical in abstract. If this guy was caught planning to kill YOUR kids, I'm betting the music changes....
Nickatilynx
12-01-2003, 02:12 PM
Let's make it personal....
Ok ,DJ. Lets :)
You are arrested in the next few hours.
What do you think should be done?
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Dec 1 2003, 02:20 PM
Let's make it personal....
Ok ,DJ. Lets :)
You are arrested in the next few hours.
What do you think should be done?
Arrested for what? That is the crux of the matter...
If I'm arrested for terrorism and they have evidence that I am planning to detonate a dirty bomb.....I'm not gonna be surprised if the attitude is "FUCK YOU".....
If I'm caught planning to kill YOUR kids, Nick, logically, I am not surprised to find you have no sense of humor about it and your attitude is "DIE MOTHERFUCKER, DIE"...
No jury, no trial, just *poof* off the planet.....
If you're trying to say I'm arrested in the next few hours and am totally innocent of the charges and the govt is making it all up because they hate me due to my Mexican descent...
I say, "puhleeze..."
Originally posted by Diamond Jim+Dec 1 2003, 02:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Diamond Jim @ Dec 1 2003, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Nickatilynx@Dec 1 2003, 02:20 PM
Let's make it personal....
Ok ,DJ. Lets :)
You are arrested in the next few hours.
What do you think should be done?
Arrested for what? That is the crux of the matter...
If I'm arrested for terrorism and they have evidence that I am planning to detonate a dirty bomb.....I'm not gonna be surprised if the attitude is "FUCK YOU".....
If I'm caught planning to kill YOUR kids, Nick, logically, I am not surprised to find you have no sense of humor about it and your attitude is "DIE MOTHERFUCKER, DIE"...
No jury, no trial, just *poof* off the planet.....
If you're trying to say I'm arrested in the next few hours and am totally innocent of the charges and the govt is making it all up because they hate me due to my Mexican descent...
I say, "puhleeze..."[/b][/quote]
Did I mention...
"Trust me, I'm from the Government!"
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 02:36 PM
Did I mention...
"Trust me, I'm from the Government!"
The government is too busy screwing over ordinary citizens to worry about framing a terrorist... :bdance: :bwave: :bdance: :bwave:
Nickatilynx
12-01-2003, 02:34 PM
"Trust me, I'm from the Government!"
Absolutely , they wouldn't arresst an innocent man.
Its never happened.
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Dec 1 2003, 02:42 PM
"Trust me, I'm from the Government!"
Absolutely , they wouldn't arresst an innocent man.
Its never happened.
Happens all the time....and they go to trial...some are even innocent...and some are even innocent and found guilty by their peers...
Irrelevant...
From what I've heard (no first hand experience) jails are full of innocent men
Ask anyone in jail they'll tell you - either that or their lawyer fucked 'em
The above post is made with acknowledgment to Stephen King and JR's sig line - Red can tell you all about it
Originally posted by Vick@Dec 1 2003, 03:09 PM
From what I've heard (no first hand experience) jails are full of innocent men
Ask anyone in jail they'll tell you - either that or their lawyer fucked 'em
The above post is made with acknowledgment to Stephen King and JR's sig line - Red can tell you all about it
I'll print this post out and have it mailed to BOTH of us every week when we are locked up for our participation in this "Obscene" industry.
sarettah
12-01-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by KC@Nov 30 2003, 05:11 PM
At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the New York-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the United States -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------
It turns my stomach that the American people allow this administration to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Even the most heinous criminals have rights when they are US Citizens in the US!!!!
I've already written my Senators and Congressman. I wish other Americans speak up too.
What do you think? Is the nature of the crime relevant? Can Ashcroft pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't?
Hmmm... Been taking a few minutes to reacquaint myself with this case...
It seems to me KC, that you may have left out some pertinent facts....
The first and most important being that a judge has already decided that he should be able to consult a lawyer.
The feds are appealing that decision.
So, this is not a case of the guy just being held and nobody hearing a wrd from him.
He was arrested, then turned over to military control back in May 2002. By December there had been the first court decision on his petition to be able to see legal consel.
One important not in this is that he was not arrested as a criminal, but rather as a material witness. Therefore, at the time of arrest he did not have the rights of someone being charged with a crime. He wasn't being charged, he was being held as a material witness. Two totally different scenarios.
anyway, onward and upward... Between December 2002 and November of this year, there have been at least 3 different court decisions issued. Each of them affirming his right to legal counsel. The Feds have appealed each of these decisions in turn.
The Feds (and states) have as much right to use the appellate process to their advantage as the Padilla does.
In all probability, he will receive his right to counsel eventually after the Feds have worn out their appeals.
But, he is not necessarilly being denied his constitutional rights.. He is involved in the constitutional process at this point.
http://www.chargepadilla.org/news.html
Last edited by sarettah at Dec 1 2003, 03:21 PM
Hmmm... Been taking a few minutes to reacquaint myself with this case...
It seems to me KC, that you may have left out some pertinent facts....
The first and most important being that a judge has already decided that he should be able to consult a lawyer.
The feds are appealing that decision.
So, this is not a case of the guy just being held and nobody hearing a wrd from him.
He was arrested, then turned over to military control back in May 2002. By December there had been the first court decision on his petition to be able to see legal consel.
One important not in this is that he was not arrested as a criminal, but rather as a material witness. Therefore, at the time of arrest he did not have the rights of someone being charged with a crime. He wasn't being charged, he was being held as a material witness. Two totally different scenarios.
anyway, onward and upward... Between December 2002 and November of this year, there have been at least 3 different court decisions issued. Each of them affirming his right to legal counsel. The Feds have appealed each of these decisions in turn.
The Feds (and states) have as much right to use the appellate process to their advantage as the Padilla does.
In all probability, he will receive his right to counsel eventually after the Feds have worn out their appeals.
But, he is not necessarilly being denied his constitutional rights.. He is involved in the constitutional process at this point.
http://www.chargepadilla.org/news.html
He's a US Citizen. He still has not been in front of a Judge and he has not seen a lawyer.
The legal process that's currently pending was started when the ACLU filed a legal brief on his behalf. I wonder if he even knows the ACLU stepped up for him. Probably not.
Last edited by KC at Dec 1 2003, 03:27 PM
sarettah
12-01-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 03:26 PM
He's a US Citizen. He still has not been in front of a Judge and he has not seen a lawyer.
The legal process that's currently pending was started when the ACLU filed a legal brief on his behalf. I wonder if he even knows the ACLU stepped up for him. Probably not.
He has also not been charged....
He has a right to a lawyer once he has been charged...
Hell, he has not even had Miranda read to him yet in most probability because that happens when charged....
The holding of Material Witnesses by the feds was recently upheld )november 7) by the second district court of appeals.
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 03:26 PM
In the best Rusasian voice from Rounders:
"Give the man his Xbox!"
;-)))
and BTW, I change my position and DO agree with KC. :salute: :purpdance:
Diamond Jim
12-01-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 03:26 PM
He's a US Citizen. He still has not been in front of a Judge and he has not seen a lawyer.
The legal process that's currently pending was started when the ACLU filed a legal brief on his behalf. I wonder if he even knows the ACLU stepped up for him. Probably not.
I agree with KC.....that's a semantics argument. He has not been given his rights as a US citizen.
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 03:34 PM
In the best Rusasian voice from Rounders:
"Give the man his Xbox!"
;-)))
and BTW, I change my position and DO agree with KC. :salute: :purpdance:
"Pay Heem... "
"Pay dis man hes money."
Originally posted by KC+Dec 1 2003, 03:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KC @ Dec 1 2003, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Vick@Dec 1 2003, 03:09 PM
From what I've heard (no first hand experience) jails are full of innocent men
Ask anyone in jail they'll tell you - either that or their lawyer fucked 'em
The above post is made with acknowledgment to Stephen King and JR's sig line - Red can tell you all about it
I'll print this post out and have it mailed to BOTH of us every week when we are locked up for our participation in this "Obscene" industry.[/b][/quote]
:okthumb:
Thanks but I already know it from the book and movie
sarettah
12-01-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 03:34 PM
and BTW, I change my position and DO agree with KC. :salute: :purpdance:
:headwall: :headwall:
That Democratic Party registration card you found in your pants pockets that morning was real after all...eh ?
:yowsa:
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 04:10 PM
no, but it was either that or agreeing that the arguments on the boards are useless...
I took the lesser of 2 evils
;-)))
sarettah
12-01-2003, 04:10 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/17/...ain583988.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/17/terror/main583988.shtml)
Litmus Test For Presidential Power
NEW YORK, Nov. 18, 2003
(AP) A panel of federal judges waded into the question of whether the president has the power alone to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant, an issue the Bush administration considers vital in its war on terror.
Three judges from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suggested Monday that President Bush needs Congressional authorization to indefinitely hold 33-year-old Jose Padilla, accused in a dirty bomb plot and designated an enemy combatant.
Giving such power exclusively to the executive branch with only limited review by the courts, said Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr., would be "a sea change in the constitutional life of this country and ... unprecedented in civilized society."
The three-judge panel is hearing an appeal of a lower-court ruling establishing that Padilla is entitled to see his lawyers and to challenge his designation as an enemy combatant. He has not seen a lawyer in 17 months.
Padilla is accused of plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb," which uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. The former Chicago gang member was arrested in May 2002 and within days was moved to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C.
In a two-hour hearing just blocks away from the World Trade Center site, Judge Rosemary S. Pooler said the president must go to Congress because it has the power to let the president make a U.S. citizen captured on American soil an enemy combatant.
sarettah
12-01-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 04:18 PM
the arguments on the boards are useless...
lololol........
I could have told you that :)
Jen gets me on it all the time if I debate with folks irl or on the boards...
lol..She's like, "why waste your time, there is nothing you can do thats gonna change anything anyway...go make some money"...
:yowsa:
I married a wise woman
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 04:15 PM
hmmm...will she think less of me because I changed my view due to the board argument?
;-)))
I am glad my lady doesn't send me out to make money
;-)))
sarettah
12-01-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 04:23 PM
hmmm...will she think less of me
Nah, that would be impossible...............
:yowsa:
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by sarettah+Dec 1 2003, 04:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Dec 1 2003, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 04:23 PM
hmmm...will she think less of me
Nah, that would be impossible...............
:yowsa:[/b][/quote]
hahahahahhahaha,
;-)))))
good one!
;-))))
sarettah
12-01-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 04:25 PM
hahahahahhahaha,
;-)))))
good one!
;-))))
Yeah, but I'll probably pay for it.............
won't I ?
:yowsa:
Winetalk.com
12-01-2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by sarettah+Dec 1 2003, 04:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Dec 1 2003, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Dec 1 2003, 04:25 PM
hahahahahhahaha,
;-)))))
good one!
;-))))
Yeah, but I'll probably pay for it.............
won't I ?
:yowsa:[/b][/quote]
maybe...if Gonzo put it in Pearls
;-)))
Update: President cannot detain U.S. citizen as enemy combatant
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/18/padilla....case/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/18/padilla.case/index.html)
NEW YORK (CNN) --In a setback to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the president does not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant.
In a 65-page decision, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that the U.S. government must release Jose Padilla from military custody within 30 days.
If appropriate, Padilla also can be held as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings, the court said.
"The government can transfer Padilla to appropriate civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges against him," the order said.
Padilla has been held in a South Carolina naval brig for the past year and a half.
"It's reassuring that constitutional protections that we are all entitled to as citizens were confirmed. And we look forward to meeting our client," said attorney Donna Newman.
The U.S. government could ask for a stay of the order or ask the full panel of the appeals court to hear the case.
In November, the appeals court panel cast doubt Monday on whether the Bush administration had the authority to designate Padilla an "enemy combatant" and detain him indefinitely without criminal charges. (Full story)
Some legal analysts have said the Padilla case may eventually head to the Supreme Court. The government has maintained that Bush's military moves in the war on terrorism were not subject to judicial review.
Padilla, 33, accused of being an al Qaeda operative, has been in federal custody since he arrived in Chicago, Illinois, in May 2002 on a flight from Pakistan. He was initially arrested as a material witness for the grand jury probe into the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
A former gang member, Padilla is accused of plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb," which uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. The government said he had proposed the bomb plot to Abu Zubaydah, then al Qaeda's top terrorism coordinator. Zubaydah was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002.
The government maintains Padilla received explosives training in al Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan and plotted with the group to bomb hotels and gas stations, and to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" -- a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material -- inside the United States.
Defense attorneys maintain Padilla traveled to Chicago to visit his son.
The government never levied criminal charges against Padilla before President Bush declared in June 2002 that he represented a "grave danger to the national security" of the nation, reclassifying him as an enemy combatant, and transferring him to military custody, where he has remained incommunicado.
"As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al Qaeda poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation," the court said in its majority opinion.
"But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress," it added.
In a dissenting opinion, District Judge Richard C. Wesley said the president as commander in chief "has the inherent authority to thwart acts of belligerency at home or abroad that would do harm to United States citizens."
Marvin Smilon, a spokesman for interim U.S. Attorney David Kelley, said he could not comment, The Associated Press reported. In Washington, Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the agency was reviewing the decision.
Chris Dunn, a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling "historic," according to The Associated Press.
"It's a repudiation of the Bush administration's attempt to close the federal courts to those accused of terrorism," he said. The group had submitted a legal brief supporting Padilla.
Two other people have been designated enemy combatants since the 2001 terrorist attacks: Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar who has been accused of being an al Qaeda sleeper agent, and Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana native captured during the fighting in Afghanistan.
In its ruling Thursday, the court said it was not addressing the detention of any U.S. citizens seized within a zone of combat in Afghanistan, the AP reported.
Last edited by KC at Dec 18 2003, 05:35 PM
Will the Government appeal this to the US Supreme Court?
Will it be another 18 months before they agree to hear the case?
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.