Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on November 09, 2003, 06:07:29 PM
-
He just does not matter anymore?
Please?
This guy died in 1993 and no one told him yet.
More Gore comedy:
"He brought the crowd to its feet when he called for a repeal of the Patriot Act, which expanded government's surveillance and detention power, allowing authorities to monitor books people read and conduct secret searches.
Gore chided the administration for what he said was its "implicit assumption" that Americans must give up traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.
"In my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)," Gore said. "
Uh, no Al, we do need to police our society a little more. You remember the guys who crashed American Airplanes into the WTC after receiving flight training in American schools, being paid for by money being wired into American Banks.
Someone wake this schmuck up please.
"He also said the administration still has "no serious strategy" for domestic security "
Unlike the Administration you worked for, right Al?
Yeah. Osama put all the pieces in play right after the Nov. 00 election.
Osama: Oh gud..George Bush won the election...lets blow up a building....JIHAAAAAAD!!!
"His speech before a crowd of about 3,000 people was sponsored by the liberal activist group Moveon.org,"
Mmmmmmk.....
:rolleyes:
And Finally...where do Democrats draw their support these days.....
"The second sponsor, the American Constitution Society, is a national organization of law students, professors, lawyers and others that says it seek to counter what it characterizes as the dominant, narrow conservative vision of American law today"
FREAKIN LAWYERS, AND HIPPIE PROFESSORS!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Gore chided the administration for what he said was its "implicit assumption" that Americans must give up traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.
He's right.
-
No, he's not.
-
Al Gore has a point, I'm absolutely pissed off that I have lost my implicit right to carry a box cutter knife aboard a plane...
-
Originally quoted by Al Gore
In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:
(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.
(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.
(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.
(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.
(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.
(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war, they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.
Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong.
-
Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so are you:aok
-
The question is, why would Algore be stupid enough to believe those assumptions. I don't, and never did. In fact, I never even heard of most of those until months after the fact, when the democrats really got in a jam and needed something, anything, to use against the Administration.
-
I'm voting Bush no matter what...
If a video surfaces of W open mouth kissing a donkey on the white house lawn, I'm voting for him...
If the President jumps on stage at TRL in a pink Tu-tu and Spanks Carson Daly's naked coolie, I'm voting for him....
If George Bush goose steps down pennsylvania avenue wearing a diaper with a swastika emblazoned on it, while downloading kiddie porn...I'm voting for him...
you know why?
Because I know if he wins...it's will piss off the lawyers and the hippies....
-
Originally posted by GScholz
^^^ And some people still wonder how the Germans could have elected Hitler.
Another euro bush = hitler argument... :aok
-
Thats the most asinine thing I have ever seen stated before Grun.
While I don't agree with GScholz on virtually everything, he atleast has a point here... and I hate Al Gore.
Would you vote for an appointed leader simply because it pisses someone off you may not like... disregarding everything else?
How do you think Hitler gained power? He portrayed the same anger the people of his country felt against their enemies of WWI.
-SW
-
So Gore is Hitler?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I'm voting Bush no matter what...
If a video surfaces of W open mouth kissing a donkey on the white house lawn, I'm voting for him...
If the President jumps on stage at TRL in a pink Tu-tu and Spanks Carson Daly's naked coolie, I'm voting for him....
If George Bush goose steps down pennsylvania avenue wearing a diaper with a swastika emblazoned on it, while downloading kiddie porn...I'm voting for him...
you know why?
Because I know if he wins...it's will piss off the lawyers and the hippies....
So you take this stement seriously at face value SW? Even so what he described above is a traditional protest vote - the purpose being, regardless of other factors, to make a statement and piss people off.
As for Gscholz, although I like him and I think hes a decent guy I believe he has just fallen lockstep, rank and file, into the orthodox euro view that Bush is some sort of hitler evil guy worse than saddam or OBL or stalin... Thats pathetic..
-
bush a deserter and worse. hardly in the leage of great men.
and gore did get 400,000 more votes than bush in the last presidential election.
hardly politicaly dead more politicaly scammed and hopefully wiser for it.
-
For the safty of the whole world, Ihope that you guys will vote on the one that you think is most suitable to be the President, not just on the "winning" one.
Good luck to us all
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Thats the most asinine thing I have ever seen stated before Grun.
While I don't agree with GScholz on virtually everything, he atleast has a point here... and I hate Al Gore.
Would you vote for an appointed leader simply because it pisses someone off you may not like... disregarding everything else?
How do you think Hitler gained power? He portrayed the same anger the people of his country felt against their enemies of WWI.
-SW
Didn't you know Grunz doesn't vote.:aok
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
As for Gscholz, although I like him and I think hes a decent guy I believe he has just fallen lockstep, rank and file, into the orthodox euro view that Bush is some sort of hitler evil guy worse than saddam or OBL or stalin... Thats pathetic..
As for Grunherz, although I like him and I think he's a decent guy I believe he has just fallen lockstep, rank and file, into the orthodox whatever view that Bush is some sort of wonderful leader as great as Lincoln or Washington... That's pathetic.
:p
-
Originally posted by Torque
Didn't you know Grunz doesn't vote.:aok
Waste my time voting for any of these people? God forbid...
I will reform Washington.. Blah bleh..
I will unite America bleh bleh...
My oppenent is beholden to special intersts, bleh bleh...
My opponent put up a banner, bleh bleh...
My oppenent smoked pot 23 years ago, bleh bleh..
I support the war, oh wait, no i didnt, well maybe I did - whats the poll say?
Is this the height of political discourse in the USA?
-
Originally quoted from The boy who cried iraq (http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/)
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor
The second in command of the Third Reich
"These [terrorist] attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible, and this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail…The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
-George W Bush (1946- )
Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces
President of the United States of America
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I see Grunherz is still stalking me on this BBS. I would think by now he would have figured out that he's on my ignore list (well not actually a list ... he's the only one). Being repeatedly called a murderer for my service in Bosnia got old.
Did I call you a murderer? I dont think so. Only the dutch UN who oversaw the srebrenica "selection"...
I really thought we went over this several times...
BTW i resent thgis stalking accusation, I only responded because it was another idiotic bush = hitler comparsion. If anything one could argue you are the one more concerned with what I have to say -you claim to put me on yiur ignore list - yet somehow get the idea that I'm stalking you or that I particularly respond to your posts.
As I said before I really though we settled this UN thing a few months ago and agreed it wasnt worth bashing heads and getting upset with each other personally over my anger about the srebrenica massacre and dutch un force inaction. Did I misunderstand our informal agreement?
-
Bush isn't Hitler...more closer to Stalin, but not Hitler.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Bush isn't Hitler...more closer to Stalin, but not Hitler.
So you are saying he is worse than Hitler..
-
Bush is more like Jerry Mathers in "The Beaver" but a much more powerful Beaver.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
So Gore is Hitler?
no. muck is a nazi-wannabe, i think. :confused: :rofl
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
-
Bush handled 9/11 better than I could have ever hoped, and made my vote in my mind correct. Gore in the situation would have been like a bad guest host on Saturday Night Live reading the cue cards, and painfully obvious. No conviction, no cause.
Bush came through in spades.
Groinhurts, saying "Al Gore has a point, I'm absolutely pissed off that I have lost my implicit right to carry a box cutter knife aboard a plane... is why I don't feel loyal to a particular party anymore. Each has it's diehards that will justify the ridiculous for the sake of politics.
I don't mind taking off my shoes in the airport or having to be scanned, but to think Homeland Security is doing any actual good beyond the obvious like airport scans is outragous.
It's purpose was a good idea, but the way it's implemented is just an excuse to rob 99.9% of Americans of their rights. I thought the NRA was crazy, now I understand why they fight any regulation. The government will take it all away, and I'm right. Just look at what's happening. Need examples? I'll crush you.
Gore just called them on one thing they are completely wrong on. Doesn't make him President worthy, just right in that case.
Get over it.
-
Yes I'm a die hard Republican - thats why I would have voted for Clinton in 2000... (if I chose to vote and he could run for a third term, I dont vote and I wont vote till watermelon changes - see below)
So no you are wrong in this case, I'm no hard partisan. I'm not even partisan really, I just agree on some issues with the right and others with the left and express that - jarringly at times. However at this time the left pisses me off more, just as the right pissed me off when they were actually trying to impeach a president a few years ago, wtf...
But yea I will agree with you 100% it is the ridiculous nature of partisanship I have noticed I this country as I grew up here that turned me off of politics and made voting seem pointless because it seemed they just attacked each other because of different party system.
As for my comment about box cutters, it's sarcasm - but I do feel honestly that we must make some sacrifices compared to how we were before beacuse the world has changed. So far I personally have not seen the evils of this, CNN even in their constant negativity hasnt shown it to me either and even the nuttiest left wing blowhards on this BBS havent come up with the good either unless it's articles from extremly biased and unreasobale sources like the worl socialist website or something of that sort.
I like Bush because of his handling of 911, I like Bush for taking the big picture approach in Iraq and actually risking something for a long term gain and long term view for the mid-east. I hope it works out well. I like that he cut taxes because I'm a business major and I belive and have studied how lower taxes lead to greater growth and prosparity - it worked for Kennedy (who made a massive massive tax cut), it worked for Reagan and it seems to be working for Bush as recent numbers are very positive.
The Democratic candidates all seem weak and disorganized and basically have no ideas except vague procamtions of impending doom. Just think of it this way - Al Gore said we are less safe than before 911. This means that all the hard work, sacrifice and vigilance by millions of Americans in governemt and service and civil life has been worth nothing, in fact he states it has had a negative impact. He is spitting in all their faces and putting down their work, and why is he doing it? Because its an election year and they (and both parties do this) need issues.
Sorry Creamo, I'm not that simple to paint into a corner as some handy stereotype..
-
Originally posted by Shane
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
And it is leading up to their guns being taken away and they don't even see it coming.
-
I think America ought to have Michael Moore for president...
that would be fun!
Ravs :)
-
Originally posted by ravells
I think America ought to have Michael Moore for president...
that would be fun!
Ravs :)
He would make a movie full of smart bellybutton critiques of all world events that bother him, do nothing about them, and then just retreat to his multi million dollar mansion and rich lifestyle and make a fool of himself and everyone else at the oscars...
-
I thought his oscar speech, reproduced below, was rather good (although I don't know what an 'orange alert' is or where the duct tape comes in).
Ravs
On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to - they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or fiction of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
-
The speech was stupid.
But for entertainments sake why do you think Moore would make a good president, what policies would he enact that would be beneficial in yor eyes?
-
I think Gahore serves an important role for the Democrats in the 2004 election. As a well known, but non-runninig Democrat, he can act as a loudspeaker for the party, without having to fear any type of backlash hurtinig his chances in the election. He can come out and rally the left/center left right now in an attempt to solidify the democratic party base, and not have to worry about looking like a moderate in 9 months once the dust settles from the primary season.
Of course I'll defer to Leviathn on this topic lol.
-Sik
-
I didn't say he would be a 'good' president, I said it would be fun!
As for the policies? Ohhhh too numerous to mention but if you go his websiite: http://www.michaelmoore.com you'll be able to get a pretty good idea.
Ravs
-
exactly creamo... it is the governments job to take it all away... they will do it in little tiny pieces or in great big chunks... any way that they can. but allways... their goal is to take.
Ok `109.. I give up.. why did the euros vote for hitler?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
exactly creamo... it is the governments job to take it all away... they will do it in little tiny pieces or in great big chunks... any way that they can. but allways... their goal is to take.
Is this a formal admission of a nanny government in the US? I thought nannies were a British phenomenon.:confused:
-
this is a formal admission that all governments everywhere are trying to be your nanny.... it is what you do about it that is important.... giving up your rights, especially your firearms is not the way to get along with government. The way they get along with you is with force.
You can talk to your government from a position of weakness or from one of strength... strength is better.
All politicians want to take it away... never vote for democrats because they and their cohorts will take it away faster than the other scum..... unless smoking pot is the most freedom you aspire to of course.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Of course I'll defer to Leviathn on this topic lol.
hehe You have an interesting theory, but keep in mind that almost nobody cares about or participates in primary elections beyond the more radical elements of each party. In addition, almost nobody beyond these radical elements cares or thinks about the general election this far in advance, at least not in any substantive way.
So Gore may attempt to rally the moderate and conservative elements of the Democratic party early on, but he'll probably fail. By the election in November, nobody's going to remember him or care how he appears. The time to rally various elements of a party comes after the nominating convention, not nine months before. My guess is that Gore was preaching to the choir, keeping his name in the news, and attempting to portray himself as relevant despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
He's right.
Please explain in detail, what freedoms you have lost by this act and how it has affected your personal life.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Please explain in detail, what freedoms you have lost by this act and how it has affected your personal life.
So you obviously have no problem with strangers going through your personal belongings while you are not home.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So you obviously have no problem with strangers going through your personal belongings while you are not home.
Nice way to phrase....I don't believe for a sec that the Fed is breaking down doors on some large scale basis and that no home is safe...come on.
If the want to look around my house, I could care less as long as their motives were in regard to national security....if they started to ramsack liberal Hollywood actors homes for no reason, that I would not stand for.
So link us to where this abuse is taking place...or is it just a few isolated incidents that scare you to death?
-
How can you have a link to something you don't see? Take a closer look Rude. If Nixon had this tool there would have been no watergate. He could have done most of it legally.
They don't break down doors, they unlock them when you are not there. You can stick your head in the sand all you want.
So if they take your guns away it is ok, we have police with guns to protect us, so why do we need them?
Creamo is right. The NRA will fight a ban on a person having 100 guns in his house. Why?, because then it will be 50 guns, then 20 guns, then one gun, then no guns.
Can you provide a link to all the WMD? No, but we know they existed.
-
How the Patriot act has affected me, by Muck.
I now have to ask all new clients the following question:
What is the source of the funds you are using to make this investment.
And, do you have any affiliation to a senior government official of a foreign country.
BTW, if you think Big Brother is new...you need to ask around a bit. A man in my office was arrested in Uganda while on a mission for a church. According to him, he was arrested for being at a protest march against the govenment there.
Before his plane even touched down here in the good ol' USA, some boys from the US govt. had already stopped by to talk to his neighbors, and several of his college professors.
This happened in the 70's. Big brother has always been there.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
How can you have a link to something you don't see? Take a closer look Rude. If Nixon had this tool there would have been no watergate. He could have done most of it legally.
They don't break down doors, they unlock them when you are not there. You can stick your head in the sand all you want.
So if they take your guns away it is ok, we have police with guns to protect us, so why do we need them?
Creamo is right. The NRA will fight a ban on a person having 100 guns in his house. Why?, because then it will be 50 guns, then 20 guns, then one gun, then no guns.
Can you provide a link to all the WMD? No, but we know they existed.
So you seriously think government agents just sneak into peoples houses and rummage through things?
What govenment agency would have juristiction over this...
Oh wait..The Bureau of Underpants Gnomes!!!
-
Dunno muck, how has not having a gun affected me? But what happens when "liberals" say we shouldn't have them? Big brother has them and protects us, so we don't need them.
"So you seriously think government agents just sneak into peoples houses and rummage through things?"
Yeah, I guess they just worded the law like that for the heck of it.
-
Tell you honestly, according to a little test someone posted here, I'm not hardcore conservative. I'm for abortion...(Though I dont like it) I'm against LTA, and I'm pretty against guns. I own 2, but just dont see a need for them. I've heard all the arguments, and I'm just not convinced.
Why am I not worried about Govt agents coming into my home and sniffing my underwear?
Maybe because I'm not even remotly suspected of even jay-walking?
*shrugs*
I think some folks are a little paranoid.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I'm voting Bush no matter what...
If a video surfaces of W open mouth kissing a donkey on the white house lawn, I'm voting for him...
If the President jumps on stage at TRL in a pink Tu-tu and Spanks Carson Daly's naked coolie, I'm voting for him....
If George Bush goose steps down pennsylvania avenue wearing a diaper with a swastika emblazoned on it, while downloading kiddie porn...I'm voting for him...
you know why?
Because I know if he wins...it's will piss off the lawyers and the hippies....
BTW, you guys need to lighten up...this was a joke.:rolleyes:
-
So if they took your guns away in the name of national security, you would have no problem with this?
But forget that, let's say you are a political opponent of an incumbent, would you want him sniffing your underwear?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So if they took your guns away in the name of national security, you would have no problem with this?
But forget that, let's say you are a political opponent of an incumbent, would you want him sniffing your underwear?
I'm torn on that one, Six, much like my underwear.
On one hand, I dont think the government fears Joe Citizen with his winchester. If they wanted to do something nasty, they would, and would succeed. I dont think we'd win like in "Red Dawn". Wait, they lost...but how bout that C. Thomas Howell...
I cant see what the motivation would be for them to roll over the populace like an invading army.
On the other hand, I think guns are pretty harmless in the hands of law abiding citizens. People who register their guns, dont commit crimes...normally.
So I'd say I'm for people owning guns, but I'd like to see a way, though I know it's impossible, to keep guns away from criminals.
Does this clarify my position?
-
I see what you are saying. The point I am trying to make is, the more freedom you give up, the more is taken away.
That is why the NRA fights any ban on weapons.(although I don't see the need for 50 guns in the home) That is why pro choice fights any ban on abortion (although I do not believe in partials)
That is why I do not believe in the patriot act (although I believe in security)
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
He just does not matter anymore?
"The second sponsor, the American Constitution Society, is a national organization of law students, professors, lawyers and others that says it seek to counter what it characterizes as the dominant, narrow conservative vision of American law today"
FREAKIN LAWYERS, AND HIPPIE PROFESSORS!!!!
There is enough to question the legality the Bush Administrations practices to cause the Supreme court to revuew the legality of the detainment of 600 people at Gutmo!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/10/scotus.detainees/index.html
Given that these 9, mostly CONSERVATIVE, Justices have decided to review this situation, in my opinion means that Gore is not far off when he also expresses his concern with what the Bush Administration is doing.
"This lawless situation must not continue," Ratner said. "Every imprisoned person should have the right to test the legality of their detention. It is this basic principle that has been denied to our clients."
You conservatives are so freaking blind to your patriotic "kill the terrorists" cause... that you'll believe anything this Adminsitration says...and are willing to deny US citizen's their constitutional rights in order to kill more people.
Thus the following quote is quite appropriate for you neuvo-nazi's.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Bush: "Iraq has STOCK PILES of WMD" <<< Absurdity!
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
The question is, why would Algore be stupid enough to believe those assumptions. I don't, and never did. In fact, I never even heard of most of those until months after the fact, when the democrats really got in a jam and needed something, anything, to use against the Administration.
Those statements paraphase quotes from the Bush administration... litterally hundreds of news briefings, memos, and information coming from the Bush administration justifying and spining the cause the Iraqi war... those didn't come from the Democrats.
-
I think are are prisoners of war, but I am not well informed on what is going on there.
-
Let's take a little test now. Can the President of the United States, or his agents, take a U.S. citizen into custody, declare him an unlawful enemy combatant, and keep him indefinitely in jail?
The short answer is: the compassionate conservative has already done it, but the law is clear that only a court of law can determine who has POW (lawful combatant) rights and who does not.
Remember, the USA PATRIOT Act authorized the Attorney General to detain any immigrant without charges for seven days. It authorized continued and apparently indefinite detention for renewable periods of six months on the mere say-so of the Attorney General, once charges had been filed - but those charges did not need to have anything to do with terrorism. Indefinite detention without a hearing could occur (and has occurred) on nothing more than a visa violation.
But the PATRIOT Act applies only to immigrants. Why should Americans be concerned?
Now come Hamdi and Padilla. Should we be surprised?
Hamdi was captured in April 2002 Afghanistan, flown to Guantanamo, discovered to be an American citizen and transferred to Norfolk Naval Station Brig. in Virginia, where he remains without access to an attorney or a court of law.
Padilla was taken into custody at Chicago O'Hare airport on May 8, 2002 and flown to New York, where he was detained as a material witness for Grand Jury proceedings, assigned counsel, and set for a hearing date. Prior to the hearing date, he was designated an unlawful enemy combatant by Presidential order, and transferred, without notice to his lawyer, to the U.S. Navy Consolidated Brig in South Carolina where he is held incommunicado and has been denied all access to counsel.
Thus, two American citizens have now been imprisoned for more than six months without charges.
The District Court in the Padilla case (the Southern District of New York), ruled that the President has the authority to detain an unlawful enemy combatant, which again jumps the gun. Of course, these courts were only hearing habeas corpus petitions, to decide whether these persons had a right to be heard at all, for status determination or otherwise. Presumably, these courts will now hold hearings to determine the status of these men, and if they are determined to be unlawful enemy combatants not protected as POW's by Geneva III, the government may then ostensibly detain them for the duration of hostilities.
However, while there is no question that the government has a clear obligation to detain those determined to be threats to national security, it has no authority to make such determinations without judicial oversight.7 Indeed, to do so in the face of longstanding treaties (to which we are signatories) that require such oversight is a violation of the Geneva Conventions - and a violation of Geneva is, by federal statute, a war crime.
Yes, a war crime, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or even potentially the death penalty. Check it out: 18 U.S.C. sec. 2441.
Similarly, Bush's Military Tribunals violate Geneva.
Creighton University international law professor Michael J. Kelly writes: "The illegal nature of [President Bush's Military] order only serves to perpetuate a sense of unfairness. As written, this order runs afoul of the Third Geneva Convention"8
Jordan J. Paust, international law professor at University of Houston and former military officer, writes: "In its present form and without appropriate congressional intervention, the Military Order will create military commissions that involve unavoidable violations of international law and raise serious constitutional challenges."9
Judge Evan Wallach, a judge in the United States Court of International Trade, law professor at Brooklyn and New York Law Schools, and a former military officer who fought in the Gulf War, writes that the "failure to accord fair procedural and evidentiary standards in a trial of prisoners of war is a war crime of substantial magnitude."10
"[P]articipants in any United States military tribunal" that follows the standards set forth by the Bush military commissions order, "would be well justified in seeking counsel," says Wallach.
Francis A. Boyle, international law professor at University of Illinois, writes that the Bush military commissions violate two treaties, and that these violations are "a serious war crime." He states that Bush "has incriminated himself under the Third Geneva Convention by signing the order setting up these military commissions," and "he has incriminated himself under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996" which makes it "a serious felony for any United States citizen either to violate or order the violation of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949."11
Is there any policy in the Bush administration's measures? If there is, it is an unlawful one. If there is not, someone needs to take the helm for this reckless crew, for they are endangering the safety of every American citizen and soldier.
If there is any doubt about the methods endorsed by this administration, note that the government has admittedly placed Hamdi and Padilla each in a "tightly controlled environment [in order] to create dependency."12 As the Center for Constitutional Rights said in its amicus brief for Hamdi, the government has "prolonged detention of a potential witness so that he may be interrogated at length in conditions creating psychological dependency."
With this admission, we may as well slide down the slippery slope and codify torture.
Nova Southeastern University professor of international law James Wilets says: "It sounds hyperbolic, but in some respects the United States is, legally speaking, an international outlaw."
-------
In addition to detention camps and those items in footnote one, note that the Department of Defense has plans to use the military in the event of a smallpox outbreak. http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20021213-041745-9227r.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/4th/case/026895Pv2&exact=1
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes I'm a die hard Republican
Can you be a republican or a democrat without actually voting?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Bush handled 9/11 better than I could have ever hoped, and made my vote in my mind correct.
The decision to attack Afghanistan was so clear, that even you could have effectively acted as president after 911.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Can you be a republican or a democrat without actually voting?
I donno. Did you not read the rest of that post where I clearly state that I'm not a partisan, not Republican or Democrat...
Read it again. :)
Yes I'm a die hard Republican - thats why I would have voted for Clinton in 2000... (if I chose to vote and he could run for a third term, I dont vote and I wont vote till watermelon changes - see below)
So no you are wrong in this case, I'm no hard partisan. I'm not even partisan really, I just agree on some issues with the right and others with the left and express that - jarringly at times. However at this time the left pisses me off more, just as the right pissed me off when they were actually trying to impeach a president a few years ago, wtf...
But yea I will agree with you 100% it is the ridiculous nature of partisanship I have noticed I this country as I grew up here that turned me off of politics and made voting seem pointless because it seemed they just attacked each other because of different party system.
As for my comment about box cutters, it's sarcasm - but I do feel honestly that we must make some sacrifices compared to how we were before beacuse the world has changed. So far I personally have not seen the evils of this, CNN even in their constant negativity hasnt shown it to me either and even the nuttiest left wing blowhards on this BBS havent come up with the good either unless it's articles from extremly biased and unreasobale sources like the worl socialist website or something of that sort.
I like Bush because of his handling of 911, I like Bush for taking the big picture approach in Iraq and actually risking something for a long term gain and long term view for the mid-east. I hope it works out well. I like that he cut taxes because I'm a business major and I belive and have studied how lower taxes lead to greater growth and prosparity - it worked for Kennedy (who made a massive massive tax cut), it worked for Reagan and it seems to be working for Bush as recent numbers are very positive.
The Democratic candidates all seem weak and disorganized and basically have no ideas except vague procamtions of impending doom. Just think of it this way - Al Gore said we are less safe than before 911. This means that all the hard work, sacrifice and vigilance by millions of Americans in governemt and service and civil life has been worth nothing, in fact he states it has had a negative impact. He is spitting in all their faces and putting down their work, and why is he doing it? Because its an election year and they (and both parties do this) need issues.
Sorry Creamo, I'm not that simple to paint into a corner as some handy stereotype..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I donno. Did you not read the rest of that post where I clearly state that I'm not a partisan, not Republican or Democrat...
Read it again. :)
[/B]
Of course you're non-partisan. You don't vote.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
How can you have a link to something you don't see? Take a closer look Rude. If Nixon had this tool there would have been no watergate. He could have done most of it legally.
They don't break down doors, they unlock them when you are not there. You can stick your head in the sand all you want.
So if they take your guns away it is ok, we have police with guns to protect us, so why do we need them?
Creamo is right. The NRA will fight a ban on a person having 100 guns in his house. Why?, because then it will be 50 guns, then 20 guns, then one gun, then no guns.
Can you provide a link to all the WMD? No, but we know they existed.
You're paranoid dood
-
"Will someone call Al Gore and tell him...
He just does not matter anymore?"
Judging by this thread and its response....apparently he does.
yowser
-
Would you guys mind going over all of that again? I'm not sure I understand.
:D
Seriously, would you civil libertarians please explain how YOU would beef up security against terrorism WITHOUT abridging civil rights in some way? Do you seriously suggest that the authorities go to a judge for a warrant every single time they want to monitor someone's e-mail? Do you have the capacity to conceive of the sheer volume of communications traffic that criscrosses the country each day? How would YOU monitor the tens of millions of passengers boarding airlines in this country each day if each and every one of them had the right to demand that the authorities obtain a warrant before searching their luggage? (Seems like they were already doing that before 9/11.)
Do you really think that the entire fabric of our democratic society will come unraveled because of the new security measures?
Come on...tell me how YOU would handle the situation differently. Be specific. Tell how you would do it and at the same time safeguard our constitutional liberties.
Thorny problem isn't it.
Shuckins
-
Grun, I never know if anyone is serious or not on this BBS. You can never be sure of whether or not someone's text is their true belief or a joke.
It was simply the proposal that you would say GScholz was equating Bush to Hitler in that quote. In fact, what I read was that he was equating the majority of the American populace to Germany's populace just prior to Hitler becoming chancellor. You must know by now that there are a whole crapload (exact numbers escape me) of people who do not vote, and the ones that do vote - vote their party, who is more popular, or vote based on research.
Basically, what I read in GScholz's statement had nothing to do with Bush being Hitler - but everything to do with today's American populace being complacent enough to allow a Hitler into its leadership. It won't be Bush, he doesn't have the verbal eloquence Hitler had, but if a smooth enough talker came into play in the presidential runnings.....
-SW
-
Big differance between Hitler and Gore.
Hitler didn't invent the internet.
dago
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Of course you're non-partisan. You don't vote.
er....wouldn't that be a nonparticipant?
I believe he said he had never voted. :lol
-
Originally posted by Torque
er....wouldn't that be a nonparticipant?
I believe he said he had never voted. :lol
I'm registered to vote but every election just disguists me. I came very close close to voting in this recall election, but I finally decided against it. I felt I was being swept up in the euphorea of the process like so many were so I wansnt sure my intentions to vote would have been genuine and honest.
-
Originally posted by Rude
You're paranoid dood
As you are of the liberals my friend.
-
What's with all this, "How has this affected you?", stuff.
It has affected your fellow citizens, or doesn't thier liberty matter? If not, then why the heck does Iraqi liberty seem to mean so much more to you? :confused:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm registered to vote but every election just disguists me. I came very close close to voting in this recall election, but I finally decided against it. I felt I was being swept up in the euphorea of the process like so many were so I wansnt sure my intentions to vote would have been genuine and honest.
''There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country and vote, and the worst of those who defend it and don't vote."
There you go big fella.:aok
-
Cute...
But you cant force me to vote...
-
thrawn cares about the people of the U.S??? LOL.... I don't think so. thrawn is like all liberals... he cares about humanity but hates people.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thrawn cares about the people of the U.S??? LOL.... I don't think so. thrawn is like all liberals... he cares about humanity but hates people.
lazs
hating people is what Republicans are about....
they want women to be subjugated and forced to have babies...
At the same time they kill innocent men, women, and babies, in 3rd world countries in order to take their resources and then forcing them to buy products made from their stolen resources.
they impoversih their own people, by increasing the divide between the haves and the have nots.
Denying medical treatment to those who need it and can't afford it.
Republicans would sell their elderly to soap factories if they thought they could profit by it.
How's that for matching your absurdity.
-
I believe the confusion lies in the fact that you feel that humanity is helpless without government taking care of them while libertarians and conservatives feel that people should be given as much opportunity as possible to help themselves... and that nothing else works.
I don't care about people who don't care about themselves.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't care about people who don't care about themselves.
lazs
mentally ill people don't have the capacity to care for them selves.
The majority of homeless people are mentally ill.
It's not wellfare... it's human compassion - which the Republicans in their quest for money and greed can't even fathom.
And those who are not mentally ill would be better served with vocational and workfare support... again not wellfare.
Perhaps they could clean a Republicans toilet... if they could tolerate the toxic smell.
-
I agree that most of the homeless are mentaly incompetent or drug addicts.. you can't help them by giving them money tho.
They need to be institutionalized. They would not go to work every day even if you offered them a job. they would not be able to manage money if you gave them a monthly check.
If you don't want them institutionalized then the best thing for them is to simply allow them to continue to live as they are doing. If you build shelters for them then they will leave the second the weather gets good or they hear voices or whatever moves them and cats to get up and leave.
If you wish to do good then give money to the salvation army or to local church's that provide meals and temporrary shelter etc.
For sure... if you give my money to the government they will squander it and not solve anything. But that isn't the point is it? You don't really care one way or the other. You simply want everyone to think you "care"... You care enough to spend my money on soothing your concience.
Solving the "problem" isn't your agenda... who knows what it is? maybe you think you will get laid if you seem compassionate and womanly? maybe you are very young and have no understanding of how the world works? Maybe you are just angry with anyone who has more than you do? I don't really care why.... I simply want to keep you and your agenda from affecting my life.
lazs
-
Geeze, Lazs...I agree with you:eek:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I agree that most of the homeless are mentaly incompetent or drug addicts.. you can't help them by giving them money tho.
Who's talking about giving them money? Not me?
Ok don't institutionalize them... don't build shelters...
At least do something with them because they are a freaking traffic hazard!
If you don't care about them then think about public safety for everyone else!
Originally posted by lazs2
if you give my money to the government they will squander it
if this is true... then the money given tothe government which it spends on the military is .... squandered?
Is the money given to Bush to run this country squandered?
He's part of government...
remember every branch of government is now run by a political appointee... appointed by Bush...
programs in place, the authority and rules which they are run by are created by the congress which has been ruled by the Republicans for over a decade now... that's a lot time... they could have changed the rules.... they had the power to override Clinton's vetos.
This policies and programs of this government are run by the people that were voted in.
The low level IRS worker who enters tax forms... doesn't make the policies...
B*tch all you want about this wasteful government... the people to blame are the ones at the top, and if you don't want to blame them then blame the people who voted them in.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't care about people who don't care about themselves.
lazs
You do realize that in some cities Vets make up an ESTIMATED 50% of the homeless population...I'm not saying this is absolutly true but if it's even 10%-25% then don't you think that a bit of charity, compassion and thankfullness is in order?
...or do you just want to toss them aside somewhere where you'll never see them?
Before you get on that 'they should help themselves' high horse, think about what effects of being in combat can do to a soldiers mind. Sure, there are places for these Vets to go for help, ever try to see a Doc at a VA hospital? It can and does take months to see a doc and often it's in a city far away from his home, if he has one. Transportation is difficult and that's yet another roadblock for those Vets that are already having difficulty dealing with reality.
Families forced out on the street is a rant for another time....compassionate conservitisim indeed. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thrawn cares about the people of the U.S??? LOL.... I don't think so. thrawn is like all liberals... he cares about humanity but hates people.
Ah laszd2, you know me so not well at all. :)
-
nexus... what exactly do you wish to do with the homeless and drug addicts? I am saying that if you wish to help then give YOUR money to the salvation army and the church's... both have excellent records for helping with the least amount of waste... thousands of times more effiecient than the government.. and...
yes... war is a waste. it is the only waste that I condone and the the only power I would give a government.. To raise an army and break things and kill people... those things have to be done but are, by their nature, wasteful. The alternative is very bad tho. as to bush or republicans.... I vote republican to have less govenment. I don't thinl they do government any better than the liberals/democrats... I vote because they do less.... I would vote for any govenment official that promised to do nothing while in power or, better yet.... work toward closing down government programs.
lars... yes I do realize that vets make up a large portion of the homless some are crazy and some are drug addicts and some are a little of both. We owe them a nice warm loony bin until they are well or dead. If they are not dangerous and prefer to wander around in rags we owe them that too.
lazs