War Crimes (A Look at the Military Commission Act and Existing International Law) (1705 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary ets_essays
Rating: 0.49 on 120 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-10-18 11:49:00 EDT
---------------------
Introduction
---------------------
At this moment, I'd like you all to join me in looking closely at something your Congress signed into law 10 days ago and your president signed yesterday. It's called the Military Commissions Act.
I'm not gonna give my opinion on this Act. I'm not going to fluff it up or politicize it. I'm not going to tell you how the Mark Foley story has managed to completely hide this Act away from public scrutiny, shuffling it away from the front pages. I'm just going to highlight some points and set them against the backdrop of international law. Then I want you to decide for yourself whether you think this Act is a good idea.
Whether you think the War on Terror is a trumped up battle cry designed to obfuscate and control the national security debate, or a legitimate struggle to maintain democracy and freedom against the forces of chaos and evil doesn't matter. It is surely not a vain assumption on my part to assume that BOTH sides of this issue can convene around a desire to follow and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Democrats and republicans do not, at least publicly, argue that the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, is a worthy set of standards and ideals upon which to carry our country forward even in times of war. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that both democrats and republicans agree that international laws are also important because they offer a neutral, international standard in times of chaos and conflict.
With this in mind, let us proceed.
-----------------------------------------------
*Nazis and the Nuremberg Principles*
-----------------------------------------------
At the end of WWII, public war crimes trials were held for many of the high level officials in the Nazi party at Nuremberg. The principles on which they were tried for their crimes are called the Nuremberg Principles. Please take a moment to look over them and familiarize yourself. They are:
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
1. Crimes against peace:
1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
2. War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
3. Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
[source: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm or http://www.answers.com/topic/nuremberg-principles]
If you are reading this sentence now and you still don't know what the Nuremberg Principles say, you should go back and read them again. Why are these principles of particular interest? We will elaborate on that later. For now, let us proceed with a look at the Geneva Conventions.
-------------------------------------------
*The Geneva Convention of 1949*
-------------------------------------------
Now let's talk for a moment about the Geneva Conventions. I will focus here on the Third Geneva Convention, which deals mostly with treatment of POWs and took place in 1949. I will not reproduce the entire Convention text here, but will give selections that are pertinent to our present concerns. Here are selections from the Third Geneva Convention of 1949:
(Article 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
(Article 5): "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
(Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
(Article 13): "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
(Article 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."
(Article 27): "Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war"
(Article 33): "Members of the medical personnel and chaplains while retained by the Detaining Power with a view to assisting prisoners of war, shall not be considered as prisoners of war. They shall, however, receive as a minimum the benefits and protection of the present Convention, and shall also be granted all facilities necessary to provide for the medical care of, and religious ministration to prisoners of war."
(Article 39): "Prisoners of war, with the exception of officers, must salute and show to all officers of the Detaining Power the external marks of respect provided for by the regulations applying in their own forces."
(Article 42): "The use of weapons against prisoners of war, especially against those who are escaping or attempting to escape, shall constitute an extreme measure, which shall always be preceded by warnings appropriate to the circumstances."
(Article 60): "The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay..."
(Article 69): "Immediately upon prisoners of war falling into its power, the Detaining Power shall inform them and the Powers on which they depend, through the Protecting Power, of the measures taken to carry out the provisions of the present Section. They shall likewise inform the parties concerned of any subsequent modifications of such measures."
(Article 72): "Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive ... books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities."
(Article 88): "Officers, non-commissioned officers and men who are prisoners of war undergoing a disciplinary or judicial punishment, shall not be subjected to more severe treatment than that applied in respect of the same punishment to members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power of equivalent rank."
[source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument]
-------------------------------------------------------------
*War Crimes Act of 1996 and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld*
-------------------------------------------------------------
The War Crimes Act of 1996 was meant to clarify any grey area in U.S. law and codify elements of international convention within it. In terms of importance, the War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it easier to prosecute offenders inside the United States if either the victim or the perpetrator of the war crime is a U.S. national or armed service member. Here is the War Crimes Act of 1996:
18 U.S.C. § 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.--Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such breach or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the term 'war crime' means any conduct--
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non- international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
[source: http://www2.uakron.edu/low/War%20Crimes%20Act%20of%201996.doc or http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3680: or http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html]
In 2006, the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court decision ruled that detainees in the "war on terror" were covered under the Third Geneva Convention. This means that any breach of the Geneva Convention by U.S. armed service personnel upon any detainee in the "war on terror" could lead to a U.S. trial for international war crimes.
Enter the Military Commissions Act...
-------------------------------------
*Military Commisions Act of 2006*
-------------------------------------
October 17, 2006, the president of the United States is signed the Military Commissions Act into law. This law needs to be read to be believed. It is actually a pretty decent law with decent protections for prisoners all the way up till about the last 10 pages. What follows are a few exerpts from this Act. I will refer to the quoted text by their page number in the first PDF file for easy reference.
I urge everyone to read this act in its entirety, but I will attempt to provide an overview with my selections. The new law appears to offer many good protections from blatant abuse but still restricts a prisoner's right to challenge his detention. Many of the questionable parts come right at the end. Others are peppered throughout. It puts great power of prosecuting the "war on terror" in the hands of the Secretary of Defense and destroys habeas corpus for inmates, meaning the duration of a person's detention before appearing before the military commission is codified to be more or less indefinite, without recourse.
[source: http://balkin.blogspot.com/Bush.Military.Commissions.Bill.pdf or http://balkin.blogspot.com/Military.commissions.bill.925.pdf]
-- PAGE 4 --
(5) The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), held that the military commissions established by the Department of Defense under the President's Military Order of November 13, 2001, were not consistent with certain aspects of United States domestic law. The Congress may by law, and does by enactment of this statute, eliminate any deficiency of statutory authority to facilitate bringing terrorists with whom the United States is engaged in armed conflict to justice for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions. The prosecution of such individuals by military commissions established and conducted consistent with this Act fully complies with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, treaties to which the
United States is a party, and the law of war.
-- PAGE 8 and 9 --
"the Act makes clear that the Geneva Conventions are not a source of judicially enforceable individual rights, thereby reaffirming that enforcement of the obligations imposed by the Conventions is a matter between the nations that are parties to them."
-- PAGE 11 --
"(5) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT
.—The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis) to be:
(i) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents;
(ii) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities,which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(iii) a member of a regular armed forces who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
-- PAGE 12 --
"(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT
.—The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense
"(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
"(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
"(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
"This definition includes any individual determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, before the effective date of this Act, to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but excludes any alien determined by the President or the Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis), or by any competent tribunal established under their authority, to be
(i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war), or
(ii) a protected person whose trial by these military commissions would be inconsistent with Articles 64-76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. For purposes of this section, the term "protected person" refers to the category of persons described in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949.
-- PAGE 14 and 15 --
"(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
.—The procedures for military commissions set forth in this chapter are modeled after the procedures established for courts-martial in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, it would be neither desirable nor practicable to try unlawful enemy combatants by court-martial procedures. The trial of such persons by military commission presents new challenges that require that interpretations of this Act not be unduly influenced by the rules and procedures developed for courts-martial.
-- PAGE 17 --
"(b) DETAIL OF MEMBERS
.—When convening a commission, the convening authority shall detail as members thereof such members of the armed forces as, in his opinion, are fully qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament.
-- PAGE 18 --
"(c) EXCUSE OF MEMBERS
.—Before a commission is assembled for the trial of a case, the convening authority [Secretary of Defense or appointee] may excuse a member of the commission from participating in the case.
-- PAGE 24 --
§ 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; statements obtained by torture
"(a) IN GENERAL
.—No person shall be required to testify against himself at a commission proceeding.
"(b) STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE
.—A statement obtained by use of torture, as defined in U.S.C. § 2340, whether or not under color of law, shall not be admissible against the accused, except against a person accused of torture as evidence the statement was made.
"(c) STATEMENTS NOT OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—
No otherwise admissible statement may be received in evidence, including statements allegedly obtained by coercion, if the military judge finds that the circumstances under which the statement was made render it unreliable or lacking in probative value.
-- PAGE 25 and 26 --
"(b) RULES OF EVIDENCE
.—Subject to such exceptions and limitations as the Secretary [of Defense] may provide by regulation, evidence in a military commission shall be admissible if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person.
"(c) HEARSAY EVIDENCE
.—Hearsay evidence is admissible, unless the military judge finds that the cir cumstances render it unreliable or lacking in probative value, provided that the proponent of the evidence makes the evidence known to the adverse party in advance of trial or hearing.
"The military judge shall exclude any evidence the probative value of which is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the members of the commission, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
-- PAGE 31-34 --
"(e) LIMITED EXCLUSION OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
.—(1) The military judge may, subject to the provisions of this subsection, permit the admission in a military commission under this chapter of classified information outside the presence of the accused.
"(2) The military judge shall not exclude the ac cused from any portion of the proceeding except upon a specific finding that extraordinary circumstances exist such that—
"(A) the exclusion of the accused
"(i) is necessary to protect classified information the disclosure of which to the accused could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable damage to the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities; or
"(ii) is necessary to ensure the physical safety of individuals; or
"(iii) is necessary to prevent disruption of the proceedings by the accused; and
"(B) the exclusion of the accused-
"(i) is no broader than necessary; and
"(ii) will not deprive the accused of a full and fair trial.
"(3)(A) A finding under paragraph (2) may be based upon a presentation, including an ex parte or in camera presentation, by either trial counsel or defense counsel.
"(B) Before trial counsel may make a presentation described in subparagraph (A) requesting the admission of classified evidence outside the presence of the accused, the head of the executive or military department or governmental agency which has control over the matter(after personal consideration by that officer) shall certify in writing to the military judge that—
"(i) the disclosure of such classified information to the accused could reasonably be expected to prejudice the national security; and
"(ii) such evidence has been declassified to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the requirements of national security.
"(4)(A) No evidence shall be admitted if the accused is not present for its admission or the evidence is not otherwise provided to the accused, unless the evidence is classified information and the military judge makes a specific finding that—
"(i) consideration of the evidence by the commission, without the presence of the accused, is warranted; and
"(ii) admission of an unclassified summary or redacted version of that evidence would not be an adequate substitute and, in the case of testimony, alternative methods to obscure the identity of the witness are not adequate; and
"(iii) admission of the evidence would not deprive the accused of a full and fair trial.
"(B) If the accused is excluded from a portion of the proceeding, the accused shall be provided with a redacted transcript of the proceeding and, to the extent practicable, an unclassified summary of any evidence introduced. Under no circumstances shall such a summary or redacted transcript compromise the interests warranting the exclusion of the accused under this subsection.
"(5)(A) Military defense counsel shall be present and able to participate in all trial proceedings, and shall be given access to all evidence admitted under subparagraph (4).
"(B) Civilian defense counsel shall be permitted to be present and to participate in all trial proceedings, and shall be given access to evidence admitted under subparagraph (4), provided that civilian defense counsel has obtained the necessary security clearances and that such presence and access are consistent with regulations that the Secretary may prescribe to protect classified information.
"(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any defense counsel who receives classified information admitted pursuant to subparagraph (4) shall not be obligated to, and may not, disclose that evidence to the accused.
-- PAGE 39 --
"§ 949j. Opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence
"(a) IN GENERAL
.—(1) Defense counsel in a military commission under this chapter shall have a reasonable opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence, including evidence in the possession of the United States, as specified in regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of Defense].
-- PAGE 61 --
"§ 950j. Finality of proceedings, findings, and sentences
"(a) FINALITY
.—The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, the proceedings, findings, and sentences of military commissions as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military commissions are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, subject only to the authority of the President.
"(b) PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER SOLE BASIS FOR REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS
.—Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding any other law (including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military commissions under this chapter.
-- PAGE 74-75 --
"(23) TERRORISM
.—Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally kills or inflicts great bodily harm on one or more persons, or intentionally engages in an act that evinces a wanton disregard for human life, in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct, shall be guilty of the offense of terrorism and shall be subject to whatever punishment the commission may direct, including, if death results to one or more of the victims, the penalty of death.
"(24) PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM
.—Any person who provides material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, an act of terrorism (as defined in subsection (b)(23) of this section), or who intentionally provides material support or resources to an international terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the United States, knowing that such organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in subsection (b)(23) of this section), shall be guilty of the offense of providing material support for terrorism and shall be subject to whatever punishment the commission may direct. The term 'material support or resources' has the meaning provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b).
"(25) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY
.—Any person who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States or one its co-belligerents shall be guilty of the offense of wrong fully aiding the enemy and shall be subject to whatever punishment the commission may direct.
-- PAGE 77 and 78 --
SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00002241----000-.html] is amended by replacing subsection (e) with the following:
"(e) Except as provided for in this subsection, and notwithstanding any other law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim of cause of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this Act, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien's detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement:
"(1) COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS
.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
The scope of such review is defined in section 1005(e)(2) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
If the Court grants a detainee's petition for review, the Department of Defense may conduct a new
Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
"(2) MILITARY COMMISSIONS
.—Review shall be had only of final judgments of military commissions as provided for pursuant to section 247 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
"(3) INFORMATION CONSIDERED
.—The court may consider classified information submitted in camera and ex parte in making any determination under this section.".
-- PAGE 79 --
(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.—
(1) IN GENERAL
.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
--------------------
Conclusion
--------------------
Ok, I have to admit, I was reading this bill thinking to myself, "Geeze, what's all the fuss about. Then I ran across pages 77 through 79 and it became clear. It doesn't really matter whether all the laws are followed to a "t" during a person's detainment if they have no way of finding out why they are being detained or forcing their captors to give them a fair and SPEEDY trial, or reaching an outside source of justice to check upon their captors or file complaints under Geneva.
Remember the War Crimes Act of 1996? They amended subsection (c)(3), and it now limits the definition of a war crime - moving it away from a sweeping concordance with Geneva Conventions and, instead, makes a list of its own. This serves to exclude certain practices from being defined as war crimes.
There seems to be no protections against indefinite detainment. There are no limitations on how long a person can be detained before the necessary evidence is collected for trial. This is a 180 degree shift from the presumption of innocence in civilian law enforcement. There, the police must show cause, obtain warrants, and charge those they arrest with a crime. Of course, it's understandable if a person is a terrorist, they need to be detained posthaste, but there also needs to be accountability in this process. Not everyone at Gitmo is someone who was witnessed by American forces doing wrong. Many were handed over to our forces by Pakistani or Afghani bounty hunters. Identity is not always assured.
Although the judge, under this statute, is obliged to inform the members of the commission the detainee is innocent until proven guilty, the fact that a person can be held so long until trial without any hope of challenging their detainment in a civilian or international forum is like running a concentration camp. Furthermore, the fact that they have little or no opportunity to confront their accusers, especially in cases where information is classified, poses a real problem, particularly in capital cases, where a potentially innocent life hangs in the balance.
Let's finish up by revisiting the Nuremberg Principles. Why did I bother posting them? How are they pertinent? They are pertinent because they say something about the way in which even war criminals - which includes the worst kind of criminals imaginable - should be treated under international law. According to the Nuremberg Principle, even war criminals have rights. Read Principle V: "Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
According to this, Saddam Hussein has rights. Osama Bin Laden has rights. Josef Stalin had rights. And yes, if he'd been caught by soldiers instead of committing suicide in his lowly bunker, even Hitler himself would have had rights.
The right to a trial, to face your accusers and defend against their accusations before a neutral judge or a panel of peers, is among the many rights the Nazis denied certain people themselves, but were afforded anyway at Nuremberg. Why?
Why should a war criminal who has spent his whole career denying others this fundamental right, even to the point of murdering them in cold blood by the tens of thousands, be afforded this fundamental right once caught by international forces? Why do we not shoot them down in the street like dogs, or torture them publicly instead? Why do we not just skip the trial business and throw them to the mob to be torn limb from limb?
Sure, we could do that. In fact, it would probably streamline the system a great deal if we did. But we could no longer call ourselves a society of men. If we lowered ourselves to the level of these criminals, we would certainly be no better than them. This is the moral foundation of society. The right to trial is one of the things that separates men from beasts. It is so basic, to think of a world without it would require such a devolution of thought, one would have to become an animal to comprehend it. One would be no better than a broken horse - unquestionably loyal and afraid of his master, not remembering the bittersweet taste of freedom.
While this bill appears to offer certain protections against most types of torture and appears to provide fair trials to accused terrorists when they are finally charged with a specific crime; the problem is, it does nothing to curb the possibility of indefinite detention.
User Reviews
Submitted by Chazzy (user info) at 2006-10-21 12:47:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:49:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
OK.
What seems to get lost in this semantic 'discussion' is the fact that this travesty opens the door for continued abuse of power.
Period.
The United States government is not responsible nor transparent enough to wield this kind of power!
So how about all you GI Joe assholes fuck off with the patriotic bullshit for a moment to realize that your altruistic dedication to your country, while admirable, blinds you from any rational consideration of the multiple failures of that very same government. The government has consistently manipulated your noble contribution to pledge your life for our protection.
We appreciate you. We all appreciate your participation in attempting to secure our greater safety. Thank you.
However, the bottom line is: Your government is a fucking disaster. The people responsible for the orders you so diligently follow are being handed down by malignant fuckers with suspect motives and the sort of righteous self interest that actually CREATES the very people you have signed up to protect us from. Now, while I know it goes against your programming to question orders - you really need to start making the rational choice to not be so god damned obtuse and willfully ignorant. Do some fucking research. Ask some fucking questions. PLEASE?
Open your programmed little minds up just wide enough to consider what the deplorable ramifications of what this Military Commission Act means outside of the battlefield.
This isn't chicken little bullshit here... this is the suspension of rights without ANY sort of process. Plucking suspicious mother fuckers right off the street and locking them up. In SECRET JAILS, no less.
What is next? Jailing journalists... incarcerating opinionated nerds fucking around on the internet?
More people need to scream BULLSHIT!
We need to collectively become a LOT more aware and smarten the fuck up in a hurry people. All of us.
------------------------
Hit. Nail. On. Head.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-20 13:51:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Check out what's on CSPAN2 right now.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2006-10-19 19:17:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS is totally gonna get his ass kicked by some crazy Mossad agent, just because....
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 18:28:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 16:30:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Again, you're confusing your timeline. That's par for the course.
Even though this particular argument has little to do with the larger debate over the Military Commissions Act, I will entertain it one last time...
I'll start by saying this: ISRAEL STARTED THE BOMBING FIRST!
Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers in response to members of their own forces being taken prisoner and then Israel started bombing towns full of civilians where they thought Hezbollah forces were stationed.
That's the true recent timeline here the one you so conveniently try to confuse, along with both the Israeli and American media, for the most part.
Hezbollah only started firing rockets into Israeli cities AFTER Israel had fired upon theirs. Anyone who says otherwise is either mistaken or LYING. Which are you, Indo?
I acknowledged that Hezbollah's firing on Israeli civilian targets was a mistake both in terms of international empthy and in terms of morality, and said I didn't condone it, but I UNDERSTOOD it. Why? Because realistically what recourse did they have when their own civilians were being bombed?
It's not like they had the benefit of satellite imagery of all the locations of Israeli forces like their oppostion did of them, right? So, strategically speaking, how are you going to make use of the weapons you DO have without just firing into an empty field?
Do they celebrate civilian Israeli deaths? Some of them probably do. Some, I know, do not. But it's the same on both sides. The history of this conflict has deeper roots than just a couple soldiers or a few Israeli-held prisoners.
What kills me is how people like you can possibly think that the Palestinians or Lebanese are some kind of media powerhouses. You act as if they conveniently drag their dead civilians in front of journalists, or maybe even shoot them themselves to make for a good picture. To listen to you, one might think they're all PR experts with deep conspiratorial connections in the American and international media. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is the Israelis and their powerful Washington lobby that has managed to skew the debate in their favor. They managed to confuse the situation by ignoring the reason Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers in the first place - because Israel was holding Hezbollah members prisoner already.
This "what came first, the chicken or the egg" routine is indicative of the very arguments Israelis and Muslims have amongst themselves to justify their conflict, and it's getting old. It's also completely beside the point of this post.
-------------------------------------
Where is your source ETS?
I know you wouldn't trust an Israeli paper because they are as evil as the US.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=737825
So how about the UN report?
http://domino.un.org/unispal.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/87e2508779d8ec83852571b6004c761f
"The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line) towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel and attacked an IDF patrol."
Hezebullah fired rockets when they crossed the border.
What recourse did they have when their people were being bombed? First off they could stop firing rockets from civilian areas (the only places Israel bombed). Secondly to stop a ground invasion they could give the troops they took back. That is what they could do. They coulld save their rockets for when Israel came in on foot and fire them at troops tanks, but they chose not to.
As far as media games, watch the video I linked. Think back to the "aid worker" who paraded around a dead baby for the camera. Think back to every "protest" news footage you saw in the middle east where little kids are encouraged to throw rocks at tanks. Now either their parents want to put their kids in harms way, they know that Israel goes out of their way not to hurt kids and/or they like to use kids as shields. Ask yourself if you really think it is safe for a reporter to take pictures that hamas or hezebullah don't like in a hamas or hezebullah controlled area?
It is besides the point of this post but YOU brought it up by saying that groups like hezebullah are honorable soilders and should be treated under the rules of the geneva convention.
As to the point of this post it doesn't change anything the US is doing. It cements its current policy of not giving terrorists the protections of the geneva convention (which they are not entitled to). I have not read the whole thing, but unless it says it can be used against americans on american soil, I am not that worried. I think it is a mistake for public relations reasons, I think it sets a bad and dangerous precedent (slippery slope and all that), I think it won't last, but I agree with it in principle.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-19 17:52:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 16:30:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 15:42:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 13:57:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you arguing the Hezbollah thing.........
...
Simply put, I understand why they have to fight the way they do. Same as the insurgents in Iraq. Same for our own continental soldiers during the Revolutionary war. They ambush. They hit and run. They fire from the trees, at the enemies' backs. To stand up to your enemies toe to toe would be suicide if you were one of these groups. While I don't agree with it, I understand the temptation to say, "You're firing at our cities. You're firing at our innocent people. We'll fire at yours."
--------------------------------------
Ambush - fine.
Hit and run - fine.
Fire from trees - fine.
Fire at enemies backs -fine.
They don't do this, at least they don't just do this.
They fire rockets with the goal of hitting civilians.
They fire rockets indiscriminately, hoping to hit civilians.
They celebrate civilian death.
They fire rockets from civilian areas then cry when Israel strikes back at those civilian areas.
----------------------
Again, you're confusing your timeline. That's par for the course.
Even though this particular argument has little to do with the larger debate over the Military Commissions Act, I will entertain it one last time...
I'll start by saying this: ISRAEL STARTED THE BOMBING FIRST!
Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers in response to members of their own forces being taken prisoner and then Israel started bombing towns full of civilians where they thought Hezbollah forces were stationed.
That's the true recent timeline here the one you so conveniently try to confuse, along with both the Israeli and American media, for the most part.
Hezbollah only started firing rockets into Israeli cities AFTER Israel had fired upon theirs. Anyone who says otherwise is either mistaken or LYING. Which are you, Indo?
I acknowledged that Hezbollah's firing on Israeli civilian targets was a mistake both in terms of international empthy and in terms of morality, and said I didn't condone it, but I UNDERSTOOD it. Why? Because realistically what recourse did they have when their own civilians were being bombed?
It's not like they had the benefit of satellite imagery of all the locations of Israeli forces like their oppostion did of them, right? So, strategically speaking, how are you going to make use of the weapons you DO have without just firing into an empty field?
Do they celebrate civilian Israeli deaths? Some of them probably do. Some, I know, do not. But it's the same on both sides. The history of this conflict has deeper roots than just a couple soldiers or a few Israeli-held prisoners.
What kills me is how people like you can possibly think that the Palestinians or Lebanese are some kind of media powerhouses. You act as if they conveniently drag their dead civilians in front of journalists, or maybe even shoot them themselves to make for a good picture. To listen to you, one might think they're all PR experts with deep conspiratorial connections in the American and international media. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is the Israelis and their powerful Washington lobby that has managed to skew the debate in their favor. They managed to confuse the situation by ignoring the reason Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers in the first place - because Israel was holding Hezbollah members prisoner already.
This "what came first, the chicken or the egg" routine is indicative of the very arguments Israelis and Muslims have amongst themselves to justify their conflict, and it's getting old. It's also completely beside the point of this post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 16:30:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 15:42:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 13:57:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you arguing the Hezbollah thing.........
...
Simply put, I understand why they have to fight the way they do. Same as the insurgents in Iraq. Same for our own continental soldiers during the Revolutionary war. They ambush. They hit and run. They fire from the trees, at the enemies' backs. To stand up to your enemies toe to toe would be suicide if you were one of these groups. While I don't agree with it, I understand the temptation to say, "You're firing at our cities. You're firing at our innocent people. We'll fire at yours."
--------------------------------------
Ambush - fine.
Hit and run - fine.
Fire from trees - fine.
Fire at enemies backs -fine.
They don't do this, at least they don't just do this.
They fire rockets with the goal of hitting civilians.
They fire rockets indiscriminately, hoping to hit civilians.
They celebrate civilian death.
They fire rockets from civilian areas then cry when Israel strikes back at those civilian areas.
----------------------
Again, you're confusing your timeline. That's par for the course.
Even though this particular argument has little to do with the larger debate over the Military Commissions Act, I will entertain it one last time...
I'll start by saying this: ISRAEL STARTED THE BOMBING FIRST!
Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers in response to members of their own forces being taken prisoner and then Israel started bombing towns full of civilians where they thought Hezbollah forces were stationed.
That's the true recent timeline here the one you so conveniently try to confuse, along with both the Israeli and American media, for the most part.
Hezbollah only started firing rockets into Israeli cities AFTER Israel had fired upon theirs. Anyone who says otherwise is either mistaken or LYING. Which are you, Indo?
I acknowledged that Hezbollah's firing on Israeli civilian targets was a mistake both in terms of international empthy and in terms of morality, and said I didn't condone it, but I UNDERSTOOD it. Why? Because realistically what recourse did they have when their own civilians were being bombed?
It's not like they had the benefit of satellite imagery of all the locations of Israeli forces like their oppostion did of them, right? So, strategically speaking, how are you going to make use of the weapons you DO have without just firing into an empty field?
Do they celebrate civilian Israeli deaths? Some of them probably do. Some, I know, do not. But it's the same on both sides. The history of this conflict has deeper roots than just a couple soldiers or a few Israeli-held prisoners.
What kills me is how people like you can possibly think that the Palestinians or Lebanese are some kind of media powerhouses. You act as if they conveniently drag their dead civilians in front of journalists, or maybe even shoot them themselves to make for a good picture. To listen to you, one might think they're all PR experts with deep conspiratorial connections in the American and international media. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is the Israelis and their powerful Washington lobby that has managed to skew the debate in their favor. They managed to confuse the situation by ignoring the reason Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers in the first place - because Israel was holding Hezbollah members prisoner already.
This "what came first, the chicken or the egg" routine is indicative of the very arguments Israelis and Muslims have amongst themselves to justify their conflict, and it's getting old. It's also completely beside the point of this post.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 15:42:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 13:57:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you arguing the Hezbollah thing.........
...
Simply put, I understand why they have to fight the way they do. Same as the insurgents in Iraq. Same for our own continental soldiers during the Revolutionary war. They ambush. They hit and run. They fire from the trees, at the enemies' backs. To stand up to your enemies toe to toe would be suicide if you were one of these groups. While I don't agree with it, I understand the temptation to say, "You're firing at our cities. You're firing at our innocent people. We'll fire at yours."
--------------------------------------
Ambush - fine.
Hit and run - fine.
Fire from trees - fine.
Fire at enemies backs -fine.
They don't do this, at least they don't just do this.
They fire rockets with the goal of hitting civilians.
They fire rockets indiscriminately, hoping to hit civilians.
They celebrate civilian death.
They fire rockets from civilian areas then cry when Israel strikes back at those civilian areas.
Please don't go on and on about how you know more because you look at other sources. Did you ever watch pallywood? After the thousands of videos you post try watching one that is impossible to fake, that shows how realistic the reporting you watch is.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/powerlinenews/video2/?bclid=78383014&bctid=187745401
The one thing I give Hammas and Hezebullah props for is the media war. They know that thousands of reporters will want pictures and news will carry anything that they take, but they also know that they control southern Lebannon (or gaza strip in the case of hammas) and only the pictures they like will make it out. Al- Jennin Massacre, mohommad al-dura all completely faked, all pretty common. They know people like you and the ignorant masses in the middle east will ignore videos from Israel, will ignore reports from people like a canadian UN officer who complains about being used as a human shield, will ignore reports from lebanese christian towns who complain about being used as a human shield, will ignore the few photos that can be spirited out and side with hezebullah.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=322
You say you can understand why hezebullah did what they did. Can you understand why the kidnapped the soilders? This started the recent violence. They instigated it, how else should israel have responded? What happens when they just give in? What happened when they just gave back Gaza? they were attacked. You will sit there and say that Israel bulldozed their houses first, but the fact is they gave Palestine land they wanted and in turn they were attacked. If this is how they are treated can you fault them for being aggressive with Hezebullah?
Never in the history of the world has a stronger force allowed a weaker one to attack them with impunity. You supporting Hezebullah supports the way of thinking that says it is ok to kidnap soilders or randomly fire rockets onto civilians with no chance of hitting a military target. I don't like what Israel does, but at least they have a military target, they don't lob missiles and hope to hit civilians. They have punished their own for hitting civilians, have you ever seen hezebullah do that? It is celebrated by hezebullah when a rocket kills a civilian.
The whole thing you miss is that Israel doen't fire on civilians first. If someone launches a rocket at them from a civilian area they have two choices, bomb that area or invade the country and fight their way to where the rocket came from (by which time the attackers will be gone) and make it so it can't be used to attack them by keeping the land. They can't trust Lebannon to police their own people. They can't give into their demands because one of the fundamental (and stated) goals of hezebullah is to wipe israel out.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:49:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
OK.
What seems to get lost in this semantic 'discussion' is the fact that this travesty opens the door for continued abuse of power.
Period.
The United States government is not responsible nor transparent enough to wield this kind of power!
So how about all you GI Joe assholes fuck off with the patriotic bullshit for a moment to realize that your altruistic dedication to your country, while admirable, blinds you from any rational consideration of the multiple failures of that very same government. The government has consistently manipulated your noble contribution to pledge your life for our protection.
We appreciate you. We all appreciate your participation in attempting to secure our greater safety. Thank you.
However, the bottom line is: Your government is a fucking disaster. The people responsible for the orders you so diligently follow are being handed down by malignant fuckers with suspect motives and the sort of righteous self interest that actually CREATES the very people you have signed up to protect us from. Now, while I know it goes against your programming to question orders - you really need to start making the rational choice to not be so god damned obtuse and willfully ignorant. Do some fucking research. Ask some fucking questions. PLEASE?
Open your programmed little minds up just wide enough to consider what the deplorable ramifications of what this Military Commission Act means outside of the battlefield.
This isn't chicken little bullshit here... this is the suspension of rights without ANY sort of process. Plucking suspicious mother fuckers right off the street and locking them up. In SECRET JAILS, no less.
What is next? Jailing journalists... incarcerating opinionated nerds fucking around on the internet?
More people need to scream BULLSHIT!
We need to collectively become a LOT more aware and smarten the fuck up in a hurry people. All of us.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:11:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? I AM NOT A MAN
SEXY TIME EXPLOSION!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:07:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But I like you better, George.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-19 14:03:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You like men
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 13:57:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you arguing the Hezbollah thing.........
...
Hezbollah are more or less the people's army. They fight together where they do because they ARE composed of common citizens. There is a core that trains and lives together as an army, then there are the common citizens that fight with them, basically from their own homes. It is necessary they do this if they're going to stand up to the second or third most powerful army in the world.
Israel indiscrininately shot rockets into these places because a couple soldiers had been kidnapped. They killed hundreds of innocent people. How is taking 2 soldiers diferent from what Israel does in Palestine almost every day? Knocking down doors with their boots, raiding houses, taking people into Israeli prisons? There are two sides to this story and some people refuse to even TRY to see the other side.
You say I have no idea what's going on there, but I know just as well as any of you. You know what you've seen on your TV and read on the internet just like me. Difference is, I actively searched out the other side because I wanted to know, and because all I was hearing on American TV was the Israeli side - like it's too fucking taboo or something to say, "maybe those Jews are fucking wrong for once."
Simply put, I understand why they have to fight the way they do. Same as the insurgents in Iraq. Same for our own continental soldiers during the Revolutionary war. They ambush. They hit and run. They fire from the trees, at the enemies' backs. To stand up to your enemies toe to toe would be suicide if you were one of these groups. While I don't agree with it, I understand the temptation to say, "You're firing at our cities. You're firing at our innocent people. We'll fire at yours."
The Revolutionary War is a perfect example. The Continental Army were just a bunch of farmers. They weren't all regulars and they weren't always organized. A lot of them helped how they could and when they could.
War now is NOTHING like then. It is even more imperative an enemy fight guerilla style warfare if they stand a chance in hell of winning against the most powerful armies on the planet. In the age of GPS guided missiles and satellite imagery, you can't just stand in the fucking open, twiddling your thumbs, making plans. You'd better have your ass in someone's basement or bunker or you'll be a dead man, and you'll lose.
You people wanna talk about "fair"... How "fair" is it that the United States Army can fire guided missiles at enemy ranks hundreds of miles away - in another country even - if they see, via satellite imagery, an enemy army is on the move? You hear about it all the time. You've seen images of it happening on your TVs and you've thought nothing of it other than "good riddence to the enemy". But did you ever think for a second that if these people don't possess the same ability to fire long range rockets with accuracy, that they might have to fight in a guerilla way to win? Did you ever consider that it is out of total necessity they blend in with the population and attack only when an opportunity presents itself?
These "rules of war" are a good idea when you're talking about regular armies with the wherewithal to face each other toe to toe, but not when you're talking about poor people in a broken country with an occupying force in limited space in the desert with limited natural cover and an enemy that's got the most advanced weaponry ever devised by man.
Think about it. Don't just say it isn't "fair" and think you're right because the talking heads on American TV agree with you. Really think and consider this point.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-10-19 12:01:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I find it amusing/sad how willing so many intelligent Americans are to become no better than those they call terrorists. America is the bad guy now, get your heads out of your asses. Everyone else in the world sees it. You've killed more innocents than any terrorist. You torture. You gun down children, rape women. America is no better than those you label terrorists.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-19 07:46:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, I'm sorry, but he's absolutely right. They use our own rules of engagement against us. They know what we are and aren't allowed to do, and use it to their advantage. This isn't a regular war with two armies fighting each other. If it was, it would have been over a long time ago.
I'm not FOR the war going on, but they don't fight fair, and I don't think we should have to either.
I laugh, because if you went over there spouting all this bullshit, some hezbollah terrorist would walk up to you and shoot you in the face just for being an American pig and not a devout Muslim. He won't care who's side you're on.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:35:04 (#)
Ranking: -2
They (Hezbollah) are considered a "terrorist organization" by the administration and the Israelis, but they have regular uniforms and fight head on like an army. They are, in fact, a Lebanese militia, so there is inconsistency in the definition of "terrorist" there.
--------------
NO THEY DO NOT YOU COWARDLY CUNTRAG! They hide among civilian populations, they cache their weapons in schools, mosques, and hospitals. They are NOT AN ARMY, they are NOT A MILITIA. They display their flag only when the enemy is nowhere in sight, and they march in uniform in parades and displays, but never in battle.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-19 07:32:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:51:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Anthony,
Let's say for a moment I'm wrong on my Hezbollah statement. Let's say I don't know what I'm talking about because all the news organizations I've relied on have led me to believe a lie...
Still with me???
Ok.
What does that really have to do with this law I'm talking about in the post? How is that really pertinent in the larger scheme of things? Does that make me, by default, wrong on this too? If so, how am I wrong?
You see...this is the nature of REAL debate. You can disagree on the details all you like, but if you haven't attacked the core of my assertions, they will live on. They will breed and grow in the consciousness of those that read my words like an itch that just won't go away.
If you don't knock me down in any meaningful way, the itch will become a full blown rash.
I'm not saying you're right. I knew full well someone would use exactly the argument you just used. I'm not an idiot. The official line on Hezbollah has always centered around the assertion of them "hiding amist innocents". That may well be true, and I may well be wrong on that point, but you cannot win the greater argument by attacking the fringes.
Don't be scared, motherfucker. Don't be a fucking pussy. That's what you're acting like...a fucking PUSSY!
ATTACK ME WHERE IT MATTERS!
----------------------------------
The fact that you still cling to Hezebullah being a real militia and denying their tactics (which have been proven multiple times with video footage from Israel, AP photographs, and actual lebeanese witnesses) destroys your argument by destroying your credability. Anyone who claims they fight in uniform and engage the enemy like a regular army has absolutely no idea what is going on.
The fact is this law doesn't break the geneva convention. It only cememnts the US's already taken position of not giving enemy combabtants who fight under no flag, under no rules of engegement all the rights that people who do these things would recieve.
The people that they describe are not protected under the Geneva convention.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-10-19 06:20:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:55:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
Shut the fuck up. Has the government beat down your door yet? Your repeated threats on the president actually deserve a visit...
I'm not fucking worried because I am not conversing with terrorist suspects in Pakistan's caves.
I think you are a god damned criminal with how fearful you are of the government "finding you out."
Go back to YOUR cave.
---------------------------
Fucking stupid idiot.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-10-19 05:37:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Honestly, why aren't people more upset about this?
...oh right. No one gives a shit.
hmmm. Sad.
GO BEARS WOOOOOOO!*dies* ...lolzers and a OMFG.
We certainly are a sack of distracted willfully ignornat apathetic mouth-breathing assholes ain't we?
.
.
.
How do I change this channel?
+
+
+
Society is broken!
WEEEEEEEP.
- We the people. For the people. By the people. Remember? No? YES?
'We the people' need to grow us a big fucking sack o' BALLS and take this world back... from ourselves.
Don't we?
We should.
Right? Right? Right?
DUUUUUUURRRR DUURRRRRR. SUPER FRIENDS!!!!one one one!!!! WEEEeeeeeeee
.\\end transmission.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-10-19 03:21:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 02:48:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
If this was just about "them", it might be different, but this is about all of us. If you can't take the time to read this law and see that, you're simply illiterate.
Call me a madman all you like, it's not going to change what's right there in black and fucking white.
--------
The black and white says I'm right. It's because you're insane that you don't understand that.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 02:48:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If this was just about "them", it might be different, but this is about all of us. If you can't take the time to read this law and see that, you're simply illiterate.
Call me a madman all you like, it's not going to change what's right there in black and fucking white.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-10-19 02:09:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:51:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Anthony,
Let's say for a moment I'm wrong on my Hezbollah statement. Let's say I don't know what I'm talking about because all the news organizations I've relied on have led me to believe a lie...
Still with me???
Ok.
What does that really have to do with this law I'm talking about in the post? How is that really pertinent in the larger scheme of things? Does that make me, by default, wrong on this too? If so, how am I wrong?
You see...this is the nature of REAL debate. You can disagree on the details all you like, but if you haven't attacked the core of my assertions, they will live on. They will breed and grow in the consciousness of those that read my words like an itch that just won't go away.
If you don't knock me down in any meaningful way, the itch will become a full blown rash.
I'm not saying you're right. I knew full well someone would use exactly the argument you just used. I'm not an idiot. The official line on Hezbollah has always centered around the assertion of them "hiding amist innocents". That may well be true, and I may well be wrong on that point, but you cannot win the greater argument by attacking the fringes.
Don't be scared, motherfucker. Don't be a fucking pussy. That's what you're acting like...a fucking PUSSY!
ATTACK ME WHERE IT MATTERS!
-----------
Brad, I've been nailing you like my first love since the minute you started spouting this bullcrap. Your general response is to ignore it, blow by it, and continue to spout tin-foil hat conspiracies. Knock you down in a meaningful way? I have unloaded a lead meteorite onto your skull in any and every argument we've ever had. The point I've always made is that I CANNOT win an argument with you, because you are insane! It is impossible to win an argument with a madman like yourself. Facts are pitiful things you swat with flies, malleable to you as quicksilver. I "attack the fringes" as you say, because a blow to your shoulder is as troublesome to you as a strike through your heart.
Our enemies are not uniformed combatants. The only place they fit under the Geneva convention is non-uniformed agents, (AKA spies), which makes them eligible for summary execution. In any event, they don't get habeus corpus. Never have. Never will.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:51:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anthony,
Let's say for a moment I'm wrong on my Hezbollah statement. Let's say I don't know what I'm talking about because all the news organizations I've relied on have led me to believe a lie...
Still with me???
Ok.
What does that really have to do with this law I'm talking about in the post? How is that really pertinent in the larger scheme of things? Does that make me, by default, wrong on this too? If so, how am I wrong?
You see...this is the nature of REAL debate. You can disagree on the details all you like, but if you haven't attacked the core of my assertions, they will live on. They will breed and grow in the consciousness of those that read my words like an itch that just won't go away.
If you don't knock me down in any meaningful way, the itch will become a full blown rash.
I'm not saying you're right. I knew full well someone would use exactly the argument you just used. I'm not an idiot. The official line on Hezbollah has always centered around the assertion of them "hiding amist innocents". That may well be true, and I may well be wrong on that point, but you cannot win the greater argument by attacking the fringes.
Don't be scared, motherfucker. Don't be a fucking pussy. That's what you're acting like...a fucking PUSSY!
ATTACK ME WHERE IT MATTERS!
For once, one of you grow the fucking balls to attack me where it truly matters and stick with it.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:35:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
They (Hezbollah) are considered a "terrorist organization" by the administration and the Israelis, but they have regular uniforms and fight head on like an army. They are, in fact, a Lebanese militia, so there is inconsistency in the definition of "terrorist" there.
--------------
NO THEY DO NOT YOU COWARDLY CUNTRAG! They hide among civilian populations, they cache their weapons in schools, mosques, and hospitals. They are NOT AN ARMY, they are NOT A MILITIA. They display their flag only when the enemy is nowhere in sight, and they march in uniform in parades and displays, but never in battle. If you ever, ever fucking stopped for five seconds to address the inconsistencies in your bullshit, you'd....we'll you'd probably just go right by it and keep believing what you believe because that's what you want. Because you are insane.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-19 01:14:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by nyxmar (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:27:05 (#)
Ranking: 2
This law is total bullshit, we are erasing the checks and balances that were setup for a reason. John Adams once said our government was setup so devils could run it but do no harm. we have released the devils and they are going to bite us in the ass. It no longer takes evidence or a judge to imprison someone, it merely takes a man and his views now, tell me how this is different than some of the worse dictatorships ever known.
----------------------
Thank you. You have no idea how much it means to me to see others that SEE IT.
Thanks to Anansie too, and all the rest of you who, in this time of craziness and plastic fear, are able to cut through the smog of disinformation wearing the goggles of reason.
The few of you who do make me, for the first time in ages, PROUD to be a fucking American!
*I need to lay off the wine :$*
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-18 22:11:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I forgot about the time zone difference. You might want to tune in *now.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-18 21:20:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You might want to tune into pbs right about now.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:51:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:20:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
"How many heads did the American Rebels cut off? How many sneak attacks that only had the goal of civilian casualties did they pull off?"
If you replace heads cut off with hanging then the answer to these is quite a few.
--------------------------
of reporters? of Contractors? Yes they did hang people, but so did the British. To be honest I don't know who hung more, I am guessing the Americans since you brought it up.
Submitted by nyxmar (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:27:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This law is total bullshit, we are erasing the checks and balances that were setup for a reason. John Adams once said our government was setup so devils could run it but do no harm. we have released the devils and they are going to bite us in the ass. It no longer takes evidence or a judge to imprison someone, it merely takes a man and his views now, tell me how this is different than some of the worse dictatorships ever known.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:20:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"How many heads did the American Rebels cut off? How many sneak attacks that only had the goal of civilian casualties did they pull off?"
If you replace heads cut off with hanging then the answer to these is quite a few.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-18 20:02:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:47:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
Look at Stabkill and Indo.
I almost feel important with all this smear campaign bullshit.
You guys are a waste of money. Whoever is paying you is getting ripped off.
------------------------------
"How much more evidence do you need to assure yourselves that for the last 100 years or so, organizations of powerful W.A.S.P.s and Jews have pooled their resources in an effort to preserve and expand their wealth and power throughout the world?"
Those nasty organizations of jews.
Fucking idiot.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/94316
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:49:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:27:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 17:14:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Eh1in8s6Oc
________
WOW.
America keeps on slippin' slippin' slippin', into dictatorship...
------------------------
There is a guy who works in the cubicle beside me, and when I told him about the Military Commissions Act and what it does, his jaw dropped to the floor.
I couldn't help but say, "Dude, I TOLD you."
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:47:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Look at Stabkill and Indo.
I almost feel important with all this smear campaign bullshit.
You guys are a waste of money. Whoever is paying you is getting ripped off.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:43:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:19:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:52:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus Christ, do you have a job? where do find the time... never mind.
---
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
---
The scumbag terrorists do not fit any of these catagories.
---------------------------------
There is a fundamental hypocritical problem here.
First, Hezbollah.
They are considered a "terrorist organization" by the administration and the Israelis, but they have regular uniforms and fight head on like an army. They are, in fact, a Lebanese militia, so there is inconsistency in the definition of "terrorist" there.
Then you have the Iraqi resistence, which skirts the line of definition of "freedom fighter" since they are battling an occupying force. The Geneva Convention isn't clear about what constitutes an "occupied territory". That's a fairly subjective definition, I would think, particularly when there has been ceaseless fighting since the American and British forces landed.
Then there is Hamas. Labeled a "terrorist organization" again by the administration and Israel, they are now legitimate leaders of their government by popular election. Again, inconsistency.
Then think about our own American Revolution. By our own definition of "lawful combatant", our forefathers who fought in the revolution and won our independence were nothing more than common war criminals.
--------------------------------------------
Bullshit. Show me a Hezebullah uniform. Do regular armies fight by hiding among civilians and launching rockets into any civilian town they can reach?
If the Iraqi's insurgents are freedom fighters why are the largest numbers of those they have killed been innocent civilians? Why do they go to towns and round up people of a particular faith to execute them?
Now with Hamas you have a point, I don't think you can really classify them as terrorists since they were elected. Their stated desire is to wipe israel off the map, and they have committed acts of war by attacking Israel. I think they are within their rights to declare war on Palestine, but this would not help them internationally. The present course of cutting off all funding until they agree to the right of Israel to exist is a reasonable solution.
How many heads did the American Rebels cut off? How many sneak attacks that only had the goal of civilian casualties did they pull off? I don't see this as black and white and their is room for debate but if you are seriously trying to compare the actions of revolutionaries in the Us with any of these groups you need a history lesson. The war started (it had been brewing for a while) when the british regulars tried to take arms from the Massachusetts militia. The key word being militia, at that point they didn't have a uniform, but for a good portion of the war they did.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:42:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks BrandDo. I agree with you. People are starting to wake up to the blatant corruption. They're just shell-shocked and uncertain what to do about it. Maybe we'll figure it out before it's too late. I just hope "too late" wasn't "yesterday".
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/
Turn on MSNBC right now. In 15 minutes here is another Keith Olbermann Special Comment coming on. It will replay at 11:00 CST if you miss it. Either way, I'll post it here. They're usually VERY good.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:29:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:48:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
I bet ETS is blind to the fact that anyone who spews the same rhetoric as himself are usually Anti-Establishment anarchists and anti-American foreigners with a distain of American politics, particularly GW Bush.
The fact that ETS's agenda seems to line up exactly with radicals, terrorists, and people who just plain hate the USA should speak volumes to an ordinary person.
-------------------------
Don't forget he also blames powerful jews for working behind the scenes to run the world the way they like.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/94316
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:27:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 17:14:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Eh1in8s6Oc
________
WOW.
America keeps on slippin' slippin' slippin', into dictatorship...
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:25:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
HOLYSHITLOADOFTEXTIWON'TREADBECAUSEYOURACUNT!
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-10-18 19:09:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This should help to prove Iraqi Freedom was a crime committed by the U.S.A in the first place and the whole War on Terror is not going to produce a victory on either side. It might be more productive to look at the reasons why 'terrorists' target the U.S.A. and how that could be changed.
By writing this I'm considered a liberal or lefty and I can live with that.
I believe that a lot of Americans are changing their view of the world and how their country is behaving on the international stage.
You that never have done nothin' but build to destroy
You play with my world like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand then you hide from my eyes
Then you turn and run farther when the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old you lie and deceive
A world war can't be won, and you want me to believe
But I see through your eyes and I see through your brain
Like I see through the water that runs down my drain
--B.Dylan
Peace
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 17:16:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Another link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_pG_VI5Tyko
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 17:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Eh1in8s6Oc
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:39:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This seems like a good place to linkwhore
http://www.ubersite.com/m/94577
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:36:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
(Article 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
-- PAGE 12 --
"(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT
.—The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense
"(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
"(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
"(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
"This definition includes any individual determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, before the effective date of this Act, to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but excludes any alien determined by the President or the Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis), or by any competent tribunal established under their authority, to be
(i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war), or
(ii) a protected person whose trial by these military commissions would be inconsistent with Articles 64-76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. For purposes of this section, the term "protected person" refers to the category of persons described in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:33:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:27:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
by your interpretation of the geneva convention, adherence to it would not allow snipers either.
--------------
EXACTLY!
Snipers are terrorists under both Geneva Convention and the Military Commissions Act.
Read it and tell me differently. You don't have to "research it", asshole. The fucking bill is reprinted for you in the post....
but you knew that already, didn't you...?
Because you read it, right...?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:27:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
by your interpretation of the geneva convention, adherence to it would not allow snipers either. i'm not going to research it and give you my interpretation of it, though, because i don't have the political/historical/military background to do so. i just got done with midterms, my brain is done, and i refuse to do any more studying or research. all that i can surmise from your limited quote is that 'open arms' means that it is against the geneva convention to just up and attack somebody willy-nilly.
that being said, it could also be that the geneva conventions' soul purpose was to punish those that lose in war on a broad scale, so that those that lost would be held accountable for anything and everything. i could be wrong though, i'm no expert. near as i can tell though, you aren't either.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:20:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:03:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:56:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact is, there is very little reason, other than creating more space in the prisons, to try any of the detainees under this Act. There is no obligation to even bring about charges, so why should they bother unless they were absolutely sure they were either guilty or innocent?
It really is insanity underneath.
------
by this logic, it makes no sense for the military to pursue those that it does not know for certain are guilty. it would make no sense for them to waste the resources in seeking them out, much less mudering them in a world arena that would view any pattern of injustice with a high degree of skepticism and reaction. basically, you can call me a sheep, but i have yet to see something go so wrong with the system that it has cause america, much less the world, to collapse. as near as i can tell, you offer no solution (not a viable one, anyways), and very little orignal insight into the discussion.
i'd stop wasting my time here if i had anything better to do.
------------------------
You really are a presumptuous moron. You look at everything I say from an such an obtuse angle. You PRESUPPOSE that everything I'm trying to say is about some kind of conspiracy. IT ISN'T!
STOP BEING SO GODDAMNED PRESUMPTUOUS AND JUST READ THE FUCKING SENTENCE, IDIOT!
FUCK! Why the hell weren't you aborted?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:16:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:57:43 (#)
Ranking: -2
seriously? did you misinterpret me that much that you thought i was arguing the nazis shouldn't be tried as war criminals? i'm just going to disregard that last statement and focus on your other bullshit.
-----------------
This is getting old.
You seriously don't listen do you? Your reading comprehension is on a level consistent with Method's article below. 5th grade level.
Where the HELL did you get that I didn't think Nazis should be tried?
Once again, you show you didn't read the post, nor did you understand my review, though it was perfectly clear.
As for the submarines, they aren't "openly presenting arms" now are they!? If you're hiding under the waves waiting to ambush a ship, you're not fighting under the rules of the Third Geneva Convention, Article 4.
You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? :P
I thought not.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 16:03:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:56:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact is, there is very little reason, other than creating more space in the prisons, to try any of the detainees under this Act. There is no obligation to even bring about charges, so why should they bother unless they were absolutely sure they were either guilty or innocent?
It really is insanity underneath.
------
by this logic, it makes no sense for the military to pursue those that it does not know for certain are guilty. it would make no sense for them to waste the resources in seeking them out, much less mudering them in a world arena that would view any pattern of injustice with a high degree of skepticism and reaction. basically, you can call me a sheep, but i have yet to see something go so wrong with the system that it has cause america, much less the world, to collapse. as near as i can tell, you offer no solution (not a viable one, anyways), and very little orignal insight into the discussion.
i'd stop wasting my time here if i had anything better to do.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:57:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
seriously? did you misinterpret me that much that you thought i was arguing the nazis shouldn't be tried as war criminals? i'm just going to disregard that last statement and focus on your other bullshit.
arguing that submarines are not legitimate forms of war fare is dumb. arguing that bombs we use against enemies is just plain stupid. by this same logic, bullets shouldn't be used either. as far as arguing the legitmacy of the atomic bomb, way to completely disregard all patterns of logic. the atomic bomb dropped at the close of the second world war has nothing to do with our judicial process for those we deem terrorists, nor does it make the present united states anything like them.
as far as calling it the 'war on terror', well this is not the grand injustice you interpret it to be. it's really just in how you interpret the word 'war' in this particular instance. the name is really just political posturing, and nothing else. it sounds a lot better to say you're fighting the war on terror than it is to say you are actively seeking out those that wish to do harm to our country and its citizens but don't fly under the flag of a recognized nation. with this in mind, we've always been fighting a war on terror, it's just that now we have a name for it. it does not mean that 'enemy combatants' had rights before this either, they didn't. to my knowledge, i can't think of a country that does afford them these rights (within their constitution), but i haven't thought about it that long. i'm going to go out on a limb and say not one does, you prove me wrong.
and as far as i'm concerned, the wire-tapping and everything else of that nature that you described is just as meaningless now as it was twenty years ago. the fact that you think that this is the first administration to wire-tap or spy on its own citizens makes you ignorant. the nsa has been monitoring us since its inception. or if you know it has been going on along, you'd realize not only does it not affect you, but that you have little control over it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:56:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:16:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:28:44 (#)
Does anyone care to help me out on this one? Coyote? Bob? Anyone want to set Wardy straight here? He obviously won't listen to it if *I* say it. Probably won't listen to it anyway.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Well, I don't really know what you're exactly trying to establish.
I don't like the law because it gives a huge amount of power to a very small group of people, who cannot be challenged on their reasons for any of their decisions, or held accountable.
Which would be fine and dandy, if mistakes were never made and if the people at the very top levels of government were 100% honest and ethical... but that isn't now nor ever has been true. It opens up a huge gaping world of potential for abuse. And, according to senior JAG personnel, the dangerous parts of the law aren't necessary or helpful. The clear implication is that the law was explicitly constructed to remove any accountability from actions the CIA has *already* taken.
But the law could also be used in cases like the 14-year old kid in Kennebunk, Maine, who broke into a boathouse to steal a VHF radio, screwed up, tried to take out a security camera, and ended up burning the boathouse down in an act of colossal stupidity. Because George H.W. Bush had a boat in the boathouse, his family was questioned by the secret service, and instead of being sentenced to time in a juvenile facility in Maine, he was shipped off to a Federal prison 600 miles away (violating Maine state law). There were lots of appeals in the case, and I don't recall what ever happened to the kid. But suppose under the Military Commissions Act he was just declared an enemy combatant and whisked away for years? Sorry, you can't appeal. Sorry, we don't have to bring you to trial, we can hold you indefinitely. Sorry, you can't hear why we think you're a terrorist and not just an inept underage petty crook. Does enemy combatant apply only to non-citizens? Part of the act seems to suggest it, but the definition of enemy combatant later on doesn't make any distinction.
To be honest, I don't think the act is going to survive its first set of court challenges, even with the Roberts court... only Thomas and Scalia are contemptible enough to try to construct an argument that the act is consistent with the Constitution.
Both sides in the American Revolution did some very nasty things to each other. There's a reason most loyalists fled to Canada afterwards... different times.
-----------------
Basically I was trying to establish that Wardy was a moron. Not that it needed to be further established, but he, at least, has difficulty seeing it. Nevermind that, though. That's personal bullshit.
As for this Act...
I agree that, upon reading it, this Act has a very good veneer of benevolence. It takes a close read to see how much power is afforded to the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Judge in the Commissions.
To me, it's like they've set up semi-reasonable procedures for conducting fair trials, complete with a limited appeals process...if only the detainees would ever stand a chance of getting TO trial!
The fact is, there is very little reason, other than creating more space in the prisons, to try any of the detainees under this Act. There is no obligation to even bring about charges, so why should they bother unless they were absolutely sure they were either guilty or innocent?
It really is insanity underneath.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:44:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:29:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
the nazis were a recognizable enemy in a war. they wore uniforms, they lead armies on an open field of battle, they pledged allegience to a nation that went to war with us.
--------------
This argument doesn't hold for several reasons.
First, war isn't waged the same way now as it was then. If you want to get technical about it, U-boats and b-2 rockets aren't exactly "open field" techniques. Neither were the atomic bombs we dropped on Japan.
Second, three words: "WAR on Terror".
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If there is a "WAR on terror" and we need extraordinary measures put in place such as spying on American citizens without a warrant, sifting through their emails, etc. then you're going to have to say it's a "war" and the combatants are lawful.
Problem is, we haven't officially declared a "war" since Korea, I think, so essentially this is already an illegal war according to our own Constitution. You can't just declare war on everyone or anyone.
If you're going to bend the definitions and call it a "WAR on terror", then you should also redefine what it means to be a lawful combatant, especially if they're not targeting civilians.
The way I see it, if it's a war on terror, any military target should be considered lawful. Even so, the Nazis killed millions of civilians, but not before sending them to slave labor camps. So it doesn't matter if they wore uniforms. They were war criminals either way.
Submitted by Maltese (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:30:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
As soon as I saw a post titled "War Crimes" on the Most Recently Reviewed, I knew it was by you.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:29:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:08:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think this is a philosophical difference that is not going to be resolved without you first growing up.
------------------
pot? kettle?
--
You seem to think that indefinite detention is just fine and dandy. You have no interest in finding out whether the people in detainment camps are ACTUALLY GUILTY.
-------------------
your argument is just as illogical as his is. he argues that it's okay to have collateral damage, whereas you're arguing that he's fighting against the personal freedoms afforded by our justice system. he's not saying there shouldn't be a process, you're the one saying that the process is flawed (yet you have no solution).
--
I can tell you've never been falsely arrested before, otherwise you'd stop talking like a dumbass.
--------------------
how does this make anyone less or more sympathetic to human rights? you haven't been imprisoned for 30 years for being black, doesn't mean you have no right in a discussion on racial segregation with nelson mandela.
--
No one is saying "let 100 guilty go free". All people are saying is, "You can't just arrest people and hold them forever without charging them with a crime and giving them their minimal right to a fair trial!"
---------------------
you are implying you'd rather let 100 guilty go free rather than make one mistake. don't lose track of your own fucking agenda, moron. if you weren't saying that, you wouldn't be arguing with him. this statement makes you look like a pussy and a retard.
--
We gave that right to the Nazis after WWII. What's so goddamned different now? Why can't we maintain our maral highground and give the same right to those ALLEGED terrorists in Gitmo and elsewhere?
---------------------
the nazis were a recognizable enemy in a war. they wore uniforms, they lead armies on an open field of battle, they pledged allegience to a nation that went to war with us. these are too completely different situations, i can't believe you just asked that. as far as a moral high ground goes, we have taken the moral high ground. we're powerful enough that we don't have to adhere to any international human rights guidelines, especially when most of the world, including those this act seeks to target, don't. we can't maintain a moral high ground that is set so high that it makes it impossible for us to defend ourselves. at some point you also have to see that the us military does not have the resources to simply start snatching up brown people and killing them for being brown.
goddammit, the more i read what you write the more i disagree with you. at the start of this i was against the act. more and more i'm seeing its benefits and disregarding its negatives, soley because i find you so abhorable.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:19:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
On the homefront...this is what happens in your pussified world:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15316912/
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:16:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:28:44 (#)
Does anyone care to help me out on this one? Coyote? Bob? Anyone want to set Wardy straight here? He obviously won't listen to it if *I* say it. Probably won't listen to it anyway.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Well, I don't really know what you're exactly trying to establish.
I don't like the law because it gives a huge amount of power to a very small group of people, who cannot be challenged on their reasons for any of their decisions, or held accountable.
Which would be fine and dandy, if mistakes were never made and if the people at the very top levels of government were 100% honest and ethical... but that isn't now nor ever has been true. It opens up a huge gaping world of potential for abuse. And, according to senior JAG personnel, the dangerous parts of the law aren't necessary or helpful. The clear implication is that the law was explicitly constructed to remove any accountability from actions the CIA has *already* taken.
But the law could also be used in cases like the 14-year old kid in Kennebunk, Maine, who broke into a boathouse to steal a VHF radio, screwed up, tried to take out a security camera, and ended up burning the boathouse down in an act of colossal stupidity. Because George H.W. Bush had a boat in the boathouse, his family was questioned by the secret service, and instead of being sentenced to time in a juvenile facility in Maine, he was shipped off to a Federal prison 600 miles away (violating Maine state law). There were lots of appeals in the case, and I don't recall what ever happened to the kid. But suppose under the Military Commissions Act he was just declared an enemy combatant and whisked away for years? Sorry, you can't appeal. Sorry, we don't have to bring you to trial, we can hold you indefinitely. Sorry, you can't hear why we think you're a terrorist and not just an inept underage petty crook. Does enemy combatant apply only to non-citizens? Part of the act seems to suggest it, but the definition of enemy combatant later on doesn't make any distinction.
To be honest, I don't think the act is going to survive its first set of court challenges, even with the Roberts court... only Thomas and Scalia are contemptible enough to try to construct an argument that the act is consistent with the Constitution.
Both sides in the American Revolution did some very nasty things to each other. There's a reason most loyalists fled to Canada afterwards... different times.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:10:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm pretty sure that guy was kidding around and referring to that South Park episode, ETX
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:09:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by nrduncan (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:05:40 (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS is actually a government conspiracy. He is actually getting paid by the government to spread this mis-information.
------------------
That's just fucking stupid. The links to every single bill are there. If you don't trust me, go read them your fucking self.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:08:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:00:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Do we go back to the ridiculous argument that we should let 100 guilty go free before letting one innocent suffer? That's a stupid argument because letting 100 guilty go free will surely hurt more than 1 innocent person. Anyone who says otherwise is a clueless bastard.
Infinite detention? So be it.
----------------
I think this is a philosophical difference that is not going to be resolved without you first growing up.
You seem to think that indefinite detention is just fine and dandy. You have no interest in finding out whether the people in detainment camps are ACTUALLY GUILTY.
I can tell you've never been falsely arrested before, otherwise you'd stop talking like a dumbass.
No one is saying "let 100 guilty go free". All people are saying is, "You can't just arrest people and hold them forever without charging them with a crime and giving them their minimal right to a fair trial!"
We gave that right to the Nazis after WWII. What's so goddamned different now? Why can't we maintain our maral highground and give the same right to those ALLEGED terrorists in Gitmo and elsewhere?
Submitted by nrduncan (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:05:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS is actually a government conspiracy. He is actually getting paid by the government to spread this mis-information.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:03:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:58:20 (#)
Ranking: -2
ets -- i did read this. and then i commented.
-------------------
Fucking liar.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:03:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
STABKILL:
Why don't you try at least reading the conclusion of the post?
If you did, you'd see this: "Of course, it's understandable if a person is a terrorist, they need to be detained posthaste, but there also needs to be accountability in this process."
No one is saying that who you are calling "terrorists" so haphazardly should be tried as civilians. All I'm saying is there needs to be a limit to how long we can hold someone without charging them with a crime or going ahead with a fair trial.
That is the BARE MINIMUM in terms of human rights, and like I said in my conclusion, it is what separates 'humans' from 'animals'.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 15:00:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Do we go back to the ridiculous argument that we should let 100 guilty go free before letting one innocent suffer? That's a stupid argument because letting 100 guilty go free will surely hurt more than 1 innocent person. Anyone who says otherwise is a clueless bastard.
Infinite detention? So be it.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:58:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ets -- i did read this. and then i commented. you didn't respond initially.i read the reviews. i read your reviews. now i have commented on your reviews. tell me where i have misinterpreted you or been misinformed?
or are you just going to ignore me?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:57:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
STABKILL:
Again you try to drag the debate away from the issue at hand. Why?
I don't have an "agenda" other than the truth. I'm trying to get to the bottom of this Military Commissions Act right now, and all you seem to be able to do is try to margainalize, ridicule, put words in my mouth, and call me a "conspiracy nut", even when I've said nothing in this post that would warrant that sort of dismissal.
I could have filled this post with a bunch of leftist soundbytes, but I chose to go to the source - the actual bill - and read the entire thing myself. I felt the seriousness of it warranted at least that much of my attention.
If you had read my conclusion, you'd see that I believe a lot of good things are included in this Act, but I had a few complaints and I spelled them out. Not only that, but I had quoted text directly from the bill to support everything I said in the post.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:56:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
To ETS, we should afford the same rights an American Citizen gets to these shitbag terrorist types who are rounded up wherever. I get it. So does the enemy.
Where was Nick Berg's lawyer when his head was hacked off?
You don't fucking fight a god damn war with kid gloves (as we really are now). The pussy-left in this country will ensure the USA never "wins" a war ever again. And probably bring back tie-dye and hemp jewelry... fuck em'.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:53:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You want the truth? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SOME TOWEL-HEAD TERRORIST WHO WAS PICKED UP WITH A DOZEN MUSLIM NUTTERS WITH ENOUGH AMMO/POWDER TO KILL A HUNDRED PEOPLE.
Shit...Carpet fucking bomb the whole middle east for all I care. I don't give a fuck about them. So fucking what? I don't intend to join a jihadist movement any time soon, so I doubt I'll be picked up and land myself at Camp Xray.
If you feel it is your duty to side with people who try to kill us, go right ahead. I am sure they would offer you little protection under geneva convention standards if they got your hands on YOU.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:48:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I bet ETS is blind to the fact that anyone who spews the same rhetoric as himself are usually Anti-Establishment anarchists and anti-American foreigners with a distain of American politics, particularly GW Bush.
The fact that ETS's agenda seems to line up exactly with radicals, terrorists, and people who just plain hate the USA should speak volumes to an ordinary person.
Just because I bring this up doesn't mean I will follow Bush to my grave. The guy sucks. Or borders are not secure and he doesn't give a fuck (and find me a democrat that does).
There is much more to daily life and living than scouring the internet for some giant conspiracy and claiming your world is caving in due to government spying or something.... god, dude. Go out and find a girlfriend (keeping your mouth shut on your nutty beliefs would help...unless you get one of those socialist radicals like the ones at Columbia University that attacked a stage)
There are a lot of people worried about having their job and receiving medical benefits that keep rising in cost year after year because of a REAL problem...not your make-believe "the government will imprison us all" bullshit.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:46:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Does anyone else notice how Stabkill is incapable of framing an argument without calling his opponent's mental stability into question.
He is unable to comment on the present debate (Military Commissions Act), so he tries to shift focus to things from past debates.
Funny thing is, in those past debates he pretty much did the same thing.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:42:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Pithy, loath, ponce, whatever.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:41:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The deranged call everyone "sheep" and put themselves on some higher platform.
SHEEP! YOU LISTEN AND BELIEVE WHAT I SAY OR YOU ARE ALL SHEEP.
Sorry, ETS. If I were to believe the moronic crap you spew 90% of the time, I would not only be a sheep following a fucking nutty as hell shepherd, I would be an idiot for not thinking on my own.
If you want to weep for the world because there are few on "your side" of these issues...go right ahead. I will preach all day long whatever the opposite of what you say on principal. You hate niggers? I love em. You think GW Bush is Hitler... I think he's Mother Theresa. I will convince 5 people to believe in me while you will have difficulty getting 1 to believe you (crazy stories find few believers...except for religion, that is.)
What kind of idiots on here have you convinced of this bullshit, ETS? Nutty people like Rob Berg? A host of Anti-American foreigners? Some arab terrorists?
Oh shit. The planes are pouring mind-altering chemicals in the air because I see contrails.
HAhaha. What a freakin' nut. Are you going to cite Alex Jones as a reference? By the way, I am a lizard person.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:34:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You comment on my reviews, which tells me you didn't bother to read the post. If you had, you might fucking understand the reviews a bit better, doncha think?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:32:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
all i did is comment on your reviews and the review of one other person. what is wrong with my questions? have i misinterpreted one of your comments? please, help me. i'm lost without you.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:28:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*buries head in hands and weeps for the future*
Wardy, again, you show what kind of fucking idiot you can truly be.
Does anyone care to help me out on this one? Coyote? Bob? Anyone want to set Wardy straight here? He obviously won't listen to it if *I* say it. Probably won't listen to it anyway.
May be best to just ignore him.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:15:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
the more i read your replies, the more i disagree with you. sure, i still disagree with this act on the moral grounds that i don't think it should be expressed that we allow the torture of any human being, but that's besides the point.
with regards to certain statements of yours:
1) yes, our forefathers and their revolutionary counterparts would have been killed if they'd have lost. or if they were caught. they didn't wear uniforms either.
2) it is not the concern of an enemy combatant whether he dies on the field of battle or at the hands of his enemy in a prison cell. his concern is his fight for freedom, and nothing else.
3) as this is the case, an enemy combatant who is detained by the us military might not have legal recourse because, well let's face it, he's attacking our country for his own beliefs, but his native country (or any country, for that matter) can still object to our detainment and treatment of him. that is his recourse, sucks, but that's what he chose. or, in order not to open myself up to your obvious rebuttal, that's what we believe he chose. yes, we'll be wrong on occassion, but to what advantage does our military/government gain by capturing, detaining, and torturing non-citizens that by your own admission stand no chance at fighting us?
3a) did you seriously just try and argue that this legislation is wrong because it seeks to make it impossible for someone or some group to attack us anywhere but on the open field of battle? are you seriously trying to tell me that this even makes sense to argue with?
4) with regards to reading comprehension and our level of literacy, is it better or worse than 100 years ago, and at what point are any of you saying the flow of information has gotten better or worse?
5) since you don't know how to improve this legislation, what was your point in posting this? what is your cause of action? what's your plan? where the fuck are you going with all this?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:14:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:11:48 (#)
Ranking: 2
This hurt my head. Shouldn't you be having some sort of post nupital shagfest?
----------------
Who says we weren't going at it while I wrote this? :P
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:11:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This hurt my head. Shouldn't you be having some sort of post nupital shagfest?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 14:06:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Two items in direct contradiction...
(Third Geneva Convention Article 5): "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
-- PAGE 8 and 9 of Military Commissions Act--
"the Act makes clear that the Geneva Conventions are not a source of judicially enforceable individual rights, thereby reaffirming that enforcement of the obligations imposed by the Conventions is a matter between the nations that are parties to them."
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:55:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:15:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
Democrats and republicans do not, at least publicly, argue that the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, is a worthy set of standards and ideals upon which to carry our country forward even in times of war"""
so you are saying that neither democrats nor republicans argue that the constitution is a good thing?
ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?
---------------
Maybe I should have used the word "question" instead of "argue". What I obviously meant is that there is no debate that the Constitution IS a good thing.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:50:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, let's try to get some perspective here....
The Geneva Convention defines "prisoners of war" thus:
(Article 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
Now, the Military Commissions Act defines a "lawful enemy combatant" thus:
-- PAGE 11 --
"(5) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT
.—The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense (whether on an individualized or collective basis) to be:
(i) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents;
(ii) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities,which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(iii) a member of a regular armed forces who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
The PRESIDENT or the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE get the final say on whether they recognize the enemy combatant as the member of a legitimate force.
Furthermore, it requires combatants to "carry their arms openly" and wear fixed distinctive signs indicating who they are. This seems fair enough...until you consider the this:
Simply put, this dooms any resistence movement to failure. Facing the United States Army openly with conventional arms is suicide. This definition outlaws the use of their most effective weapons and tactics: IEDs, etc.
Tell me, if you were an Iraqi fighting against the occupying force, how would you do it so that you would stand a chance in hell of winning while at the same time ensuring that you and your soldiers qualify for consideration under Geneva Conventions and, now, U.S. law?
This is not as cut and dry as everyone is trying to make it. Both sides of the argument have points, but none of it addresses the core of the issue. The definition of "terrorism" and "unlawful combatants" seems to do little more than outlaw tactics that could hurt western forces in a given campaign.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:39:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
for being Hot Willie
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:19:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:52:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus Christ, do you have a job? where do find the time... never mind.
---
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
---
The scumbag terrorists do not fit any of these catagories.
---------------------------------
There is a fundamental hypocritical problem here.
First, Hezbollah.
They are considered a "terrorist organization" by the administration and the Israelis, but they have regular uniforms and fight head on like an army. They are, in fact, a Lebanese militia, so there is inconsistency in the definition of "terrorist" there.
Then you have the Iraqi resistence, which skirts the line of definition of "freedom fighter" since they are battling an occupying force. The Geneva Convention isn't clear about what constitutes an "occupied territory". That's a fairly subjective definition, I would think, particularly when there has been ceaseless fighting since the American and British forces landed.
Then there is Hamas. Labeled a "terrorist organization" again by the administration and Israel, they are now legitimate leaders of their government by popular election. Again, inconsistency.
Then think about our own American Revolution. By our own definition of "lawful combatant", our forefathers who fought in the revolution and won our independence were nothing more than common war criminals.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:17:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
we torture them there so we don't have to torture them here
Submitted by moneyshotforyou (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:17:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That was a long read. No opinion at this time.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:15:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In reference to the below: Carrot & Stick theory. You get head of the line on your trial if you sing like a bird and provide more info.
The "black ops" people have their dirty fingers all UP in this, by my reasoning.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:50:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:14:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
I did read all of this. I hope you find me to be a reasonable man, as I do try.
Frankly, I consider it a good thing, this indefinite detention. I will explain exactly why:
Flight Risk.
Every single one of these people, whether they were directly witnessed in an unlawful act of war or not, are a flight risk.
They are not going to go home and wait around for their trials. They are going to vanish. They will not acknowledge the international community has a right to try them or has any authority over them.
MOST (not all) of the people at GITMO are the really scary ones, the ones who will without a doubt, vanish, and be wiring up a fucking bomb within a month.
---------------------
HEY! Someone read it! Cool.
I agree. There can be no bail bonding for military inmates. I'm not saying that should be the case. What I am saying is, there needs to be a limit to how long a person can be held before being charged with a crime.
We can't assume everyone in Gitmo is guilty. This is not a correct way to persue justice, even in these cases. The bill itself states as much, and you seem to agree with that. But...
We can't have our cake and eat it too. We don't want to define "terrorists" as legitimate enemy combatants because they are not part of any recognized regular army and we don't want to give them the same rights as "legal combatants", but we don't want to give them civil trials either.
It's a connundrum that this legislation is designed to fix. But, again, by removing habeas corpus in the process and by not providing limitations on detainment without charge or trial, they have removed all recourse a wrongfully-held detainee has to clear himself of whatever charges the military SUPPOSEDLY has against him, either through civil court or international court, and have removed all hope of being released from custody or tried in a timely manner.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:15:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Democrats and republicans do not, at least publicly, argue that the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, is a worthy set of standards and ideals upon which to carry our country forward even in times of war"""
so you are saying that neither democrats nor republicans argue that the constitution is a good thing?
ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:15:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes, people are becoming increasingly poor at reading comprehension. I see it in the twenty-year olds I go to school with. They act as though the information has to be spoon-fed to them. It's the parents. These days, instead of telling their children to improve, they call the professors and deans and brow-beat them. WTF.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:10:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm glad I had my expresso this morning.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-10-18 13:08:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Didn't seem so bad until Page 79. Reasons like this are why I want to get into politics.
Method's article was disgraceful, but true. My city is become a different place day by day...parents no longer care about education, we're becoming like an inner-city, and it's not a good sight.
Just be grateful that you're not like the 90million. Know that you rise above them.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:56:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:17:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
did...did you guys just pass a law that means you dont have to abide by the Geneva convention?!
What the fuck is WRONG with your country?!
---------------
Not exactly. It's more complicated than that.
They appear to have removed "terrorist" detainees right to claim rights under Geneva. Which, while not exactly the same, still has some pretty serious consequences to justice, because, by also removing their right to habeas corpus - to ask a civil judge to demand the captors declare their reason for detaining the person - they have left these people with absolutely no legal recourse to their indefinite detainment.
That is the main part of this legislation I see as bad.
The rest reads like it's very reasonable...until about page 77 or so. But, who's gonna read that far besides me?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:54:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:52:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus Christ, do you have a job? where do find the time... never mind.
---
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
---
The scumbag terrorists do not fit any of these catagories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack, he isn't talking about terrorists in the suicide bomb plot sense, he's talking about Taliban soldiers. Google the Tipton Three if you really want to know, they were held for 2 years without trial.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:52:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Was one of your wedding vows to start taking your meds again? :)
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:52:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus Christ, do you have a job? where do find the time... never mind.
---
* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
---
The scumbag terrorists do not fit any of these catagories.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:50:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:14:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
I did read all of this. I hope you find me to be a reasonable man, as I do try.
Frankly, I consider it a good thing, this indefinite detention. I will explain exactly why:
Flight Risk.
Every single one of these people, whether they were directly witnessed in an unlawful act of war or not, are a flight risk.
They are not going to go home and wait around for their trials. They are going to vanish. They will not acknowledge the international community has a right to try them or has any authority over them.
MOST (not all) of the people at GITMO are the really scary ones, the ones who will without a doubt, vanish, and be wiring up a fucking bomb within a month.
---------------------
HEY! Someone read it! Cool.
I agree. There can be no bail bonding for military inmates. I'm not saying that should be the case. What I am saying is, there needs to be a limit to how long a person can be held before being charged with a crime.
We can't assume everyone in Gitmo is guilty. This is not a correct way to persue justice, even in these cases. The bill itself states as much, and you seem to agree with that. But...
We can't have our cake and eat it too. We don't want to define "terrorists" as legitimate enemy combatants because they are not part of any recognized regular army and we don't want to give them the same rights as "legal combatants", but we don't want to give them civil trials either.
It's a connundrum that this legislation is designed to fix. But, again, by removing habeas corpus in the process and by not providing limitations on detainment without charge or trial, they have removed all recourse a wrongfully-held detainee has to clear himself of whatever charges the military SUPPOSEDLY has against him, either through civil court or international court, and have removed all hope of being released from custody or tried in a timely manner.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:49:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ten Common Mistakes Web Sites Make
In Reaching the Literacy Challenged
IHA Warns of Design Flaws that Prevent 90 Million Low Literate Americans from Being Able to Use Information on Many Web Sites
------
La Habra, CA - October 12, 2006 - One in five Americans now report that the Internet has greatly improved the way they get information . However, many Web sites with vital information and the best of intentions cannot be used, read, and understood by the nearly one-half of the U.S. population who have poor literacy skills.
In response to this challenge, the Institute for Healthcare Advancement (IHA) has compiled a list of 10 common mistakes made by Web site designers and creators that prevent their message from being clearly delivered and understood.
"In a nation where an estimated 90 million American adults read no higher than a 5th grade level, most Web information is written at a level that requires 10th grade or higher reading comprehension skills, and this is unfortunate," said Gloria Mayer, R.N., Ed.D., president of IHA.
"But reading is only one aspect of the problem," Dr. Mayer continued. "The skills required to scroll, follow links, enter search terms accurately, and mouse over objects are beyond the capability of many people. People will only stay at your Web site as long as they encounter success in their reason for coming there in the first place. As soon as they hit a brick wall and become frustrated trying to get the information they came there for, they will leave."
Recognizing the Internet's force as a revolutionary channel for communication and education about health issues, IHA is encouraging those who work in health care to make their Web sites more usable and easily understandable to help people understand how they can take better care of themselves and their loved ones.
IHA has compiled the following list of 10 common mistakes designers and content creators make when creating a health information Web page that prevent many users from accessing and using the information it contains:
1. Too much distracting and unnecessary information for visitors to review and choose from before they get to the information they came to the site to get. Solution: Understand why visitors are coming to your site, know what they're looking for, and make that information easy to get to. Conduct focus groups and testing if you're not sure. Arrange easy to read choices up front so that visitors can get right to the information they're seeking.
2. Flashing graphics, moving logos, and pictures that do not enhance or explain information are distracting and reduce visitors' ability to focus and navigate effectively. Solution: Stick to easy-to-read text and use illustrations to explain hard to understand concepts. Use graphics to help people understand, never to just decorate.
3. Hard to use navigational tools, such as pull-down menus, mouse-overs (graphic elements that only reveal their purpose when the cursor is placed over them), and the need to scroll below the active window can challenge low literate readers' skill levels and reduce success on the visit. Solution: Place only as much information as can appear in a window at a standard screen resolution. Keep navigational tool usage to hyperlinks, and clearly label them as Click Here. Never use mouse-overs to reveal other purposes.
4. Requiring additional "plug-in" software in order for the Web site to work. Although software such as Flash, Java, Acrobat Reader are free and easy to download for those who have these skills, for those with limited computer skills they represent a barrier that will send them to another site for information. Solution: Use simple text and, where appropriate, explanatory graphics in standard HTML format.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:49:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
5. Using multi-syllable words and medical jargon to explain information. Half of U.S. adults are unable to read above a 5th grade level, whereas most patient information is written at a 10th grade level or higher. Solution: Use simple, one- or two-syllable words as much as possible. Keep materials between 3rd and 5th grade levels where possible, and never more than 8th grade. Test your copy to determine its grade level. Simple tests include the Fry Readability Formula, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Formula (available as a utility in Microsoft Word, although there is controversy regarding its accuracy), SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook)
6. Home pages that are densely packed with graphics or text, which while attempting to help low-literate readers, actually present multiple barriers to users' goals of getting information. Solution: Visitors want to find their information quickly, so do the hierarchical work of categorizing information into easy to find clusters ahead of time. Don't make your visitors do it.
7. Not using easy to identify hyperlinks that are clearly labeled to go directly to specific information. Solution: Blue-highlighted, clearly identified words in a block of text, particularly those using such indicators as Click Here, are easier for low literate adults to use than random words or graphic links that require the user to click on pictures to navigate to information.
8. Requiring visitors to type precise information into a search engine or enter a specific URL in order to get to the information they need. Solution: Once visitors reach your site, keep navigation to a minimum by providing easy to follow links. Rather than a search engine, provide short lists of commonly accessed information. Use Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to provide information.
9. Lack of authoritative information for visitors to trust. Solution: Present only information that is verifiable and claims that can be supported by research. Adhere to strict ethical guidelines in presentation.
10. Pop-up windows that confuse the viewer about the next action to take. Solution: Stay consistent with whether a link takes visitors to that page within the current window or launches a newer window. Keep in mind many computers have pop-up blockers that prevent additional windows from opening, which can confuse and thwart visitor efforts to access information. Use visual cues to remind visitors where they are in terms of hierarchy, page x of 3, etc. Always provide a simple, highly visible way to get back to the results list or home page.
"These barriers can be overcome by making changes in copy writing and design," said Dr. Mayer. "Given the importance of this medium, health care providers and communicators need to take seriously the special needs of our low-literate citizens when communicating information over the Web."
The Institute for Healthcare Advancement is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing healthcare delivery through demonstration of innovative healthcare practices and education of healthcare professionals and consumers. The Institute provides healthcare information with particular emphasis on and attention to health literacy issues. It publishes the "What To Do For Health" book series, five books all written at a 3rd to 5th grade reading level, and available in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Korean. It also operates the Friends of Children Health Center, a model community medical and dental clinic providing low cost care for needy and uninsured youngsters in La Habra, Calif.
The IHA is headquartered at 501 S. Idaho St., Suite 300, La Habra, CA 90631; 1-800-434-4633. For more information, go to the Institute's Web site at http://www.iha4health.org.
Editorial Contacts:
Marilyn Haese/Daryn Teague
Haese & Wood
(310) 556-9612
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:46:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, and I agree with what Method said.
Most people don't have the mental faculty to judge the issue on anything beyond the sound bites and what their minister tells them.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:45:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lechuza (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:43:59 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by DrSeussman (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:16:56 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:50:16 (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF I'm not reading all that!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:49:44 (#)
Ranking: -1
WTF, I'm not reading all that!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1 because it obviously took some work. More work than I want to put into reading it but work none the less.
I think there's a HUGE difference between "work" and "waste of time".
Submitted by lechuza (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:43:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by DrSeussman (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:16:56 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:50:16 (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF I'm not reading all that!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:49:44 (#)
Ranking: -1
WTF, I'm not reading all that!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1 because it obviously took some work. More work than I want to put into reading it but work none the less.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:43:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The +2 is to balance out the knee-jerk -2ers.
It's a very complicated piece of legislation, that's for sure. I noticed that a big conservative think tank gave legislators increased conservative ratings for voting against it. So in their big ranking of lawmakers by conservativeness, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton actually got some points (for preserving individual freedoms).
I'd really like to see this clarified and amended in the next congress, especially the process of having someone declared an enemy combatant, and the part about stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:43:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:39:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
woody -- not only is it tough to gain uk citizenship for an american (i think), but ets doesn't pay his taxes and he doesn't vote. not only that, but as near as i can tell, he doesn't contribute to the economy that much. my guess is that it wasn't a matter of him wanting to go, but the fact that they wiped his application for citizenship with their asses and sent it back to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly, but I doubt it, this country pretty much lives off immigration, and white people from the usa wouldn't even raise complaints from the BNP or Daily Mail.
Of course, if he has a documented history of mental illness you could be right.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:39:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
woody -- not only is it tough to gain uk citizenship for an american (i think), but ets doesn't pay his taxes and he doesn't vote. not only that, but as near as i can tell, he doesn't contribute to the economy that much. my guess is that it wasn't a matter of him wanting to go, but the fact that they wiped his application for citizenship with their asses and sent it back to him.
Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:35:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:03:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
I read an article on web design the other day. It was called "Ten Common Mistakes Web Sites Make
In Reaching the Literacy Challenged"
It stated that 90 million Americans have a fifth grade reading comprehension level. 90 Million. I highly doubt that many of those people are on Ubersite.
===
I'd like to see the link to this article, George.
It's probably a statistic that applies to ALL U.S. residents, not those who are American citizens or those who primarily speak English (many of those 90 million are probably ESL), so let's take that into account.
Oh, and:
Jgreening
extacy_red
FoolProof
LSD420
... though that's not 'many', it's a start.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:35:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I was actually pleasantly suprised at the legislation, I was expecting something considerably worse.
And that's real sad; the usa govt. is saying it can and will ignore the Geneva Convention, and it's considered a good outcome.
This +1 is not a mere 3 point higher than my usual ranking of your posts and/or comments, it's just that Ubers rating system doesn't go anywhere near low enough for your usual crap.
I can't believe you had Filthy move to the usa instead of the other way round, I know you claim that 7/7 was a British govt. thingy, but for fucks sake, what has to happen before you decide to get outta there?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:27:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
seriously, tell me again how you affect change? is it by voting? no. is it by paying your taxes which contribute to the betterment of society? no. is it in protesting in completely ineffient, biased, and uneducated manners? yes.
i just want to know when you're going to acknowledge the fact that while you might be a proponent for change in social and government policy, you don't actually know shit and you certainly don't do it. until you acknowledge this, no one is going to respect you or your opinion.
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:25:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
WTF, I'm not reading all that.
Not because it's long, but because it's from you.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:17:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
did...did you guys just pass a law that means you dont have to abide by the Geneva convention?!
What the fuck is WRONG with your country?!
Submitted by DrSeussman (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:16:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:50:16 (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF I'm not reading all that!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:49:44 (#)
Ranking: -1
WTF, I'm not reading all that!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1 because it obviously took some work. More work than I want to put into reading it but work none the less.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:15:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:03:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, you're gay nonetheless and take it up the pooper.
All this is very well played by the government anyway. They plan things so that they get passed and are swept up by sensationalistic news like Mark Foley, that they know people gobble up.
I read an article on web design the other day. It was called "Ten Common Mistakes Web Sites Make
In Reaching the Literacy Challenged"
It stated that 90 million Americans have a fifth grade reading comprehension level, and that most web sites are geared towards a 10th grade level or higher. 90 Million. That has staggering implications on all levels.
Those are the same people that vote for Bush. I highly doubt that many of those people are on Ubersite.
It's a sad state of affairs, but trying to convince those retards of anything is futile.
You're preaching to the converted. Or the choir. I always forget how that saying goes.
If you're interested, I'll email the article to you, tried to paste it here but it's too long.
--------------------------
Yes. I'd like to read that. Post it here anyway. Just break it up, if you don't mind.
I'm sure it won't be telling me much I don't already know or suspect.
The purpose of this post was to explain to the people who are already against this bill what it is exactly they're fighting about, because BOTH sides seem to be shading the issue.
While reading the bill (and I read the entire thing) I kept looking for all these things that people were claiming it would do or not do. Some of them I saw. Some of them I clearly did not. Much of the torture stuff is very subtle. Most kinds of torture we could think of are clearly prohibited, while other parts, like amending the 1996 War Crimes Act to get away from Geneva Convention definitions of torture is highly suspicious and seems to serve no purpose other than exculpating the guilty.
People don't have the attention span for this 5300 word post. I know that. I was only hoping that those who already have an interest in this would read to get a better grasp of what's going on, because both sides of the argument seem to be getting it wrong.
The truth is, there are some positive steps in the bill. But it doesn't go far enough.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:14:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I did read all of this. I hope you find me to be a reasonable man, as I do try.
Frankly, I consider it a good thing, this indefinite detention. I will explain exactly why:
Flight Risk.
Every single one of these people, whether they were directly witnessed in an unlawful act of war or not, are a flight risk.
They are not going to go home and wait around for their trials. They are going to vanish. They will not acknowledge the international community has a right to try them or has any authority over them.
MOST (not all) of the people at GITMO are the really scary ones, the ones who will without a doubt, vanish, and be wiring up a fucking bomb within a month.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:10:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Why did I bother posting them? How are they pertinent? They are pertinent because
--------------------
This reads like a middle school essay. Though if Method is right, that is probably a good thing.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:08:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You really couldn't be more uninteresting if you tried.
Watch a goddamn football game or something an re-fucking-lax.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:08:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
your wife already did this. do you guys talk or just im each other from seperate basements?
i'd actually do something about this, but my senator already is. yeah, i voted for him, and i will continue to do so. but you can go fuck yourself because not only do you not vote, but you don't believe in paying your taxes. taxes that go to educating people and in general, improving the quality of life of the american citizen.
so great detective work, captain!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:07:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:01:33 (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS cries for the rights of terrorists. The right for them to kill you another day.
No thanks.
----------------------
Where did I do that?
Find a quote in this post that says that.
You're just making assumptions.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, you're gay nonetheless and take it up the pooper.
All this is very well played by the government anyway. They plan things so that they get passed and are swept up by sensationalistic news like Mark Foley, that they know people gobble up.
I read an article on web design the other day. It was called "Ten Common Mistakes Web Sites Make
In Reaching the Literacy Challenged"
It stated that 90 million Americans have a fifth grade reading comprehension level, and that most web sites are geared towards a 10th grade level or higher. 90 Million. That has staggering implications on all levels.
Those are the same people that vote for Bush. I highly doubt that many of those people are on Ubersite.
It's a sad state of affairs, but trying to convince those retards of anything is futile.
You're preaching to the converted. Or the choir. I always forget how that saying goes.
If you're interested, I'll email the article to you, tried to paste it here but it's too long.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:01:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS cries for the rights of terrorists. The right for them to kill you another day.
No thanks.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-10-18 12:00:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Education Post Wednesday +2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:58:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:50:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Your sources come from http://www.blogspot.com and http://www.answers.com, instantly voiding any argument you may have.
-----------------------------
No it doesn't. The sources are PDFs of the original laws.
You can find those other places as well if in doubt of their authenticity.
The whole reason I go back to the source (the laws themselves) is so there is no question about my source.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:55:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Shut the fuck up. Has the government beat down your door yet? Your repeated threats on the president actually deserve a visit...
I'm not fucking worried because I am not conversing with terrorist suspects in Pakistan's caves.
I think you are a god damned criminal with how fearful you are of the government "finding you out."
Go back to YOUR cave.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:50:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Your sources come from http://www.blogspot.com and http://www.answers.com, instantly voiding any argument you may have.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:50:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I will, but just not now.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:50:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF I'm not reading all that!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-18 11:49:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
WTF, I'm not reading all that!