"We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived? as people in fear."Craptastic! I didn't even get two sentences into his claptrap, and I've found the first instance of a lie (I've not been in a trance, or anything remotely resembling it), and an instance of fearmongering! The next lie, "...the very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused..." The whole piece is FULL of lies, and full of fear, and it's directly targeted to people like YOU who HAVE NOT EVEN READ THE ACT!When you're read the full text, and you've also read the UCMJ, then we can have a discussion.
"As it is, I now know to bury every submission you make from now on, with all 5 of my accounts. And I will "game" the site like gamers do, by getting my 10 Digg friends to do the same. In other words, don't expect ANY story to go unburied from now on."This is a sad sad boy. ...or girl.
I wouldn't ever claim to be a right-winger. I'm not even registered Republican (or Democrat for that matter)...I'd rather not try to rebut whatever was signed into law that sprang these comments from Keith as I haven't read this law. But I do know what it is trying to address. It's trying to address people with citizenship in other nations who come here legally or sometimes illegally in an attempt to harm a sovereign nations interests.It is not entirely unlike catching a cold-war spy. When the U.S. caught cold-war spies, were they ever let go? Sometimes they were. I do think that they were at least given the chance to challenge their imprisonment. However I'm also very willing to believe that a number of them were simply tucked away in cells without anyone ever knowing about it. We'll really probably never know. That is not an excuse for repeating said behavior, mind you, just rambling on the subject.Now, in the case with the cold-war, we had sovereign nations basically at odds with other sovereign nations. So there were official diplomatic channels in which to challenge imprisonment, evidence, etc.. There was even a way to officially ask, "Is this person a spy?" and you might actually get an answer.Now, with terrorist groups, and yes they actually exist. How much of a boogeyman they remain in the world is an open question, but we know that they do exist and they do want to hurt us. With terrorist groups, there is no operation within any official diplomatic channels, and the organizations cross national borders and recruit people of all nationalities. In fact, the more western-bred the individual, the better. If Al Quaeda ever convinced a red-blooded American to work for them (lets pray they dont), then we're in deep s**t if that person is smart enough to avoid detection. The reality is that America is and will remain vulnerable. The Department of Homeland Security is a joke, anyone who has worked in federal government knows they are horrible at action. America remains probably just as vulnerable to another 9/11-size attack as it did on 9/11.However, September 11, 2001 was perpetrated by foreign nationals. The next attack might use British nationals, or even Americans. This is still no excuse for suspending Habeus Corpus, so do not take my ramblings as such. I am making no excuses here, I'm trying to paint a picture of perception that perhaps a number of people don't look at.Now, if we live in a world where the enemy is a faceless organization that incorporates people with citizenships from any nation on earth to perform hideous acts of murder against innocent people, well, just what solution is there to that? Intelligence services are powerless against their own citizens, America simply doesn't spy on itself enough to prevent American citizens from destroying America. If they did, Oklahoma City and 9/11 would never have happened. We are not a police state, and we have never been a police state. So, again, what solution is there? If you catch a terrorist, and you're 90% sure he is a terrorist trying to hurt your citizens, and he has your own citizenship or is a natural born citizen of an allied country, do you let him go when you don't have enough evidence? What judge after making such a decision to release a prisoner and faced with the real possibility that that man really is a terrorist and will attempt to strike again would not feel horrific guilt upon seeing the effects of said attack? Do you let a man who is a Saudi National who you arrested in Afghanistan for killing Americans go? Under what legal precedent did you even keep him? Saudi Arabia isn't warring with us. Afghanistan wasn't officially warring with us. But nonetheless foreign nationals are shooting at American soldiers abroad. Since there is no conflict with the nations they came from, do you just let them go so they can shoot you again? These other nations they came from don't give a f*ck what these citizens of theirs are doing, in fact a lot of people in those same nations support them. Do you just let them go and hope the next time you fight them that you'll shoot them before they suicide-bomb you?These are NOT easy questions. Bush's answer is wrong, and that's an easy thing to say even if it weren't Bush, because Politicians rarely get things right. But the fact remains that the problem of stopping a faceless organization who could be anybody of any nationality is NOT AN EASY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.I AM NOT DEFENDING BUSH. Morans who decide to flame me because I played devils advocate can go lock themselves in the bathroom and please themselves (that's probably what they'd be doing anyway) I am of course willing to hear suggestions to these problems.
That's how I see it aswell. That's why I'm saying voting Demo will not solve our problems. The PEOPLE need to force change but based on our current government, how is it possible?
The only reason they're the "best choice" is because they weren't the ones in power as our government has been screwed up the fast few years. We don't really have any reason to believe they WILL do better, just a hope that with a change of parties will come a change in the government. A hope... that's all. It's sad really that we rely on one terrible party to pick up what was destroyed by another terrible party.RIP ConstitutionThis is nothing new if you ask me. Our rights have been pushed back time and time again. The founding fathers had the right idea and we should stick to what they gave us to base our government on. Instead the government has disreguarded what the constitution says. It has bent words in the most twisted ways. We now have 2 corrupt parties running our government. They can do whatever they want really. This new law proves it. The American people need to know about this and not stay ignorant. We, the people, need to make a change.
FOX News and CNN have lost my interest. .I check them out occasionally to see if they've awakened; but, it does not look like they have nor that they ever will. I've lost all respect for both of them.I've switched to MS-NBC where I find some open minded reporting..
hammerattackOct 19, 2006
"We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived? as people in fear."Craptastic! I didn't even get two sentences into his claptrap, and I've found the first instance of a lie (I've not been in a trance, or anything remotely resembling it), and an instance of fearmongering! The next lie, "...the very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused..." The whole piece is FULL of lies, and full of fear, and it's directly targeted to people like YOU who HAVE NOT EVEN READ THE ACT!When you're read the full text, and you've also read the UCMJ, then we can have a discussion.
flypcideOct 19, 2006
start by voting Democrat on Nov. 7th and hold this president accountable.
Closed AccountOct 19, 2006
"As it is, I now know to bury every submission you make from now on, with all 5 of my accounts. And I will "game" the site like gamers do, by getting my 10 Digg friends to do the same. In other words, don't expect ANY story to go unburied from now on."This is a sad sad boy. ...or girl.
bigmanoncampusOct 20, 2006
I wouldn't ever claim to be a right-winger. I'm not even registered Republican (or Democrat for that matter)...I'd rather not try to rebut whatever was signed into law that sprang these comments from Keith as I haven't read this law. But I do know what it is trying to address. It's trying to address people with citizenship in other nations who come here legally or sometimes illegally in an attempt to harm a sovereign nations interests.It is not entirely unlike catching a cold-war spy. When the U.S. caught cold-war spies, were they ever let go? Sometimes they were. I do think that they were at least given the chance to challenge their imprisonment. However I'm also very willing to believe that a number of them were simply tucked away in cells without anyone ever knowing about it. We'll really probably never know. That is not an excuse for repeating said behavior, mind you, just rambling on the subject.Now, in the case with the cold-war, we had sovereign nations basically at odds with other sovereign nations. So there were official diplomatic channels in which to challenge imprisonment, evidence, etc.. There was even a way to officially ask, "Is this person a spy?" and you might actually get an answer.Now, with terrorist groups, and yes they actually exist. How much of a boogeyman they remain in the world is an open question, but we know that they do exist and they do want to hurt us. With terrorist groups, there is no operation within any official diplomatic channels, and the organizations cross national borders and recruit people of all nationalities. In fact, the more western-bred the individual, the better. If Al Quaeda ever convinced a red-blooded American to work for them (lets pray they dont), then we're in deep s**t if that person is smart enough to avoid detection. The reality is that America is and will remain vulnerable. The Department of Homeland Security is a joke, anyone who has worked in federal government knows they are horrible at action. America remains probably just as vulnerable to another 9/11-size attack as it did on 9/11.However, September 11, 2001 was perpetrated by foreign nationals. The next attack might use British nationals, or even Americans. This is still no excuse for suspending Habeus Corpus, so do not take my ramblings as such. I am making no excuses here, I'm trying to paint a picture of perception that perhaps a number of people don't look at.Now, if we live in a world where the enemy is a faceless organization that incorporates people with citizenships from any nation on earth to perform hideous acts of murder against innocent people, well, just what solution is there to that? Intelligence services are powerless against their own citizens, America simply doesn't spy on itself enough to prevent American citizens from destroying America. If they did, Oklahoma City and 9/11 would never have happened. We are not a police state, and we have never been a police state. So, again, what solution is there? If you catch a terrorist, and you're 90% sure he is a terrorist trying to hurt your citizens, and he has your own citizenship or is a natural born citizen of an allied country, do you let him go when you don't have enough evidence? What judge after making such a decision to release a prisoner and faced with the real possibility that that man really is a terrorist and will attempt to strike again would not feel horrific guilt upon seeing the effects of said attack? Do you let a man who is a Saudi National who you arrested in Afghanistan for killing Americans go? Under what legal precedent did you even keep him? Saudi Arabia isn't warring with us. Afghanistan wasn't officially warring with us. But nonetheless foreign nationals are shooting at American soldiers abroad. Since there is no conflict with the nations they came from, do you just let them go so they can shoot you again? These other nations they came from don't give a f*ck what these citizens of theirs are doing, in fact a lot of people in those same nations support them. Do you just let them go and hope the next time you fight them that you'll shoot them before they suicide-bomb you?These are NOT easy questions. Bush's answer is wrong, and that's an easy thing to say even if it weren't Bush, because Politicians rarely get things right. But the fact remains that the problem of stopping a faceless organization who could be anybody of any nationality is NOT AN EASY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.I AM NOT DEFENDING BUSH. Morans who decide to flame me because I played devils advocate can go lock themselves in the bathroom and please themselves (that's probably what they'd be doing anyway) I am of course willing to hear suggestions to these problems.
dorkustyranusOct 20, 2006
That's how I see it aswell. That's why I'm saying voting Demo will not solve our problems. The PEOPLE need to force change but based on our current government, how is it possible?
dorkustyranusOct 20, 2006
The only reason they're the "best choice" is because they weren't the ones in power as our government has been screwed up the fast few years. We don't really have any reason to believe they WILL do better, just a hope that with a change of parties will come a change in the government. A hope... that's all. It's sad really that we rely on one terrible party to pick up what was destroyed by another terrible party.RIP ConstitutionThis is nothing new if you ask me. Our rights have been pushed back time and time again. The founding fathers had the right idea and we should stick to what they gave us to base our government on. Instead the government has disreguarded what the constitution says. It has bent words in the most twisted ways. We now have 2 corrupt parties running our government. They can do whatever they want really. This new law proves it. The American people need to know about this and not stay ignorant. We, the people, need to make a change.
pink101Oct 20, 2006
FOX News and CNN have lost my interest. .I check them out occasionally to see if they've awakened; but, it does not look like they have nor that they ever will. I've lost all respect for both of them.I've switched to MS-NBC where I find some open minded reporting..