Which brings us back to why rights must be protected.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Ok. How about it is immoral. It is unethical. It effects more than the person being killed, it effects their spouse, children, parents, siblings, friends. It effects all of their emotions and their 'right' to grow up with a father or husband. It is against the law not because murder infringes on someones right to not be murdered, but because it is horrific and infringes on someones right to exist.
You can't just trample over the law of the land whenever you like. There are established institutions and provisions within the constitution that should deal with any eventuality. This is either, at worst, another insidious bill that could potentially enable a dictatorial regime to consolidate power whenever the shit hits the fan or, at best, another piece of legislation that wouldn't be needed if the existing law enforcement and security infrastructure were doing their jobs properly.
It's quite simple, if someone does something illegal you arrest them, build your case against them and convict on the grounds of your evidence...otherwise you let them live in peace. You can't just make an accusation and then lock the accused up without any evidence or due process.
It's quite simple, if someone does something illegal you arrest them, build your case against them and convict on the grounds of your evidence...otherwise you let them live in peace. You can't just make an accusation and then lock the accused up without any evidence or due process.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-08 07:42:03)
I guess it doesn't, but he still is a criminal. But he won't be judged as such by history.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Wether I do or not I beleive it has been discussed more than once here, I just don't think saying "Bush is a criminal" contributes much.sergeriver wrote:
You don't think Bush is a criminal?
Exactly. The rights of those whom don't wish to live in fear because they obey the law and respect fellow human beings must superceed those who wish to inflict terrorZombieVampire! wrote:
Which brings us back to why rights must be protected.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Ok. How about it is immoral. It is unethical. It effects more than the person being killed, it effects their spouse, children, parents, siblings, friends. It effects all of their emotions and their 'right' to grow up with a father or husband. It is against the law not because murder infringes on someones right to not be murdered, but because it is horrific and infringes on someones right to exist.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-07-08 08:33:24)
Malloy must go
why dont you state something about the recent US Supreme Court rulings in the OP instead of this old shit. ya fuckass.
These camps are for the American people who resist the changes of the new world government that is forming. Their only going to build more and more.
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
Not sure where you got your info, but the stuff on NORTHCOM and NORAD is wrong. NORTHCOM is a US-only command.KBR site wrote:
The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities.
American citizens are still covered by habeas corpus.
Sounds like a tinfoil hat thing, tbh.
Further digging on Padilla will provide this:CameronPoe wrote:
Tunnelling into some of your links I found this rather worrying (not worrying for me I would add) article....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00772.html
Checks and balances are a wonderful thing.Washington Post wrote:
His case became a key test of Bush administration claims that U.S. citizens could be held indefinitely and without charges as "enemy combatants" in the efforts against terrorism. Once the Supreme Court seemed to tilt against that tactic, the administration moved him to the criminal justice system, where he was charged and tried.
No, it hasn't. Posse Comitatus is still in full effect.vorchester wrote:
US citizens once had the protection of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevented the use of the US military on it’s own citizens. Now that protection has been removed by two changes.
If only the SCOTUS hadn't struck down this law last month.nonsense wrote:
First the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which is vigorously being fought from many directions. The act basically allows that almost anyone can be deemed an enemy combatant, subject to be detained indefinitely.
NORTHCOM isn't "in control" of Mexico, Canada, and the CONUS. That defines its area of responsibility (AOR). Just like Europe, Russia, and Africa (mostly) define EUCOM's AOR.more nonsense wrote:
Second is the transfer of control of certain parts of the military to super-national organizations. NORTHCOM like NORAD is a super-national military organization and is in control of Mexico, Canada, and CONUS, no pun intended, which is the continental United States.
NORAD is a multi-national command (US and Canada)...Mexico isn't a player.
So...uninformed people put tinfoil hat stuff up on the internet and it immediately has credibility? If we start accepting something as flawed as vorchester.com as a legitimate source here, you people can't bitch a single bit about Fox News anymore.
Utter. Fucking. Nonsense.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Which is why we have prisons. But until you've determined that someone's committed a crime, you can't deny them their rights.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Exactly. The rights of those whom don't wish to live in fear because they obey the law and respect fellow human beings must superceed those who wish to inflict terrorZombieVampire! wrote:
Which brings us back to why rights must be protected.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Ok. How about it is immoral. It is unethical. It effects more than the person being killed, it effects their spouse, children, parents, siblings, friends. It effects all of their emotions and their 'right' to grow up with a father or husband. It is against the law not because murder infringes on someones right to not be murdered, but because it is horrific and infringes on someones right to exist.