What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
66 Comments
- MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57A victory for the Constitution, thank goodness for this judge!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Finally, some checks and balances in the American government.
- mikemac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22@eth3l -
You're right. The Constitution should be as irrelevant and meaningless to us as it is to the terrorists. - Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22There may yet be hope for our country's civil liberties.
- scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@eth3l
"In fact those groups hate the Constituton."
What a coincidence, so does our president... - osirisothedead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"The Constitution is irrelevant and meaningless to Al-Qaeda, Hizbollah, etc. In fact those groups hate the Constituton."
So your argument is that we should ignore the Constitution because terrorist groups do? Jeez, talk about letting the terrorists win.... - iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@eth3l
And that's why we are stronger than they are, at least those of us that don't dismiss the constitution out of cowardice and fear.
You an the other hand, if you admire and respect the terrorists and their ways so much, I assume you'll be leaving the country and the constitution that you dismiss as a frivolous luxury. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Andrew Wilkow was rambling about this today, saying that this far left, liberal judge who was appointed by Clinton was destroying the country or some other nonsense. Not many people even know the talk radio host I'm talking about, because he's on Sirus satellite, but he clames to be the leader in new school conservative talk radio, even IF he just copy's Hannitys 4th grade essay of the day.
- BillehBob, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19/awaits the obligatory "activist judge" comment.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15he will issue a judgement statement saying he how interprets the results of the case
and how he is sure the ruling cant apply to him - westwind429, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I can't tell if you're joking or retarded.
- scarton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm sure this is pissing into the wind, but I'm going to say it anyway.
For all you who think that this is a "victory for terrorists" because "they hate Constitution," for all of you who think that giving up the civil rights that so many thousands of Americans have died for, and for all of you who think that America needs "tools" like torture and permanent detention camps to fight the terrorists, I want you to stop and think about what you're saying for a moment.
By saying that we should adopt the tactics of our enemies because they're use of those tactics gives them an unfair advantage and makes it more difficult for us to fight them, you're saying that we should give up on everything that makes this country great (or did at one point). By brining us down to the level of those who hate us, we lose. Period.
Why? Because this isn't a fight that can be won by force. Sure, we can bomb terrorist camps, we can kill insurgents by the score, we can detain anyone who speaks ill of us, torture anyone who indicates that they somehow might be a threat. No problem. We've got the might to do it.
But guess what? Kill one and two more will come along to take their place. Why? Because hatred breeds hatred. It's a neverending cycle. And because there's no central authority to realize that it's time to capitulate when enough damage is done, there's no possible way to reach a point where the "terrorists" (a fairly loosely-defined term now) will surrender. There's no way for us to "win" short of killing or detaining everyone who we deem to be a threat. And in the case of the current conflict, that'd be tantamount to genocide.
The battle we fight now isn't for land or resources (though it started that way). It's for hearts and minds. And for us to win the hearts and minds of those who hate us, we can't breed more hate. We need to rise above the hatred be an example for the rest of the world, not sink into the sewer with everyone else.
Is this a macho, feel-good approach? Nope. Does it provide a quick fix? Nope. Does it give us the satisfaction that we know we feel when we get revenge or retaliate for wrongs done to us? Nope and nope again. Is it the kind of approach that ends up in victory parades, warrior legends, or grand speeches? Nope, nope, nope.
As our President is so fond of saying, this conflict is different than ones we've faced in the past. An approach like the one I'm proposing wouldn't have worked against someone like Hitler or even someone like Ho Chi Minh. In both of those cases (less so arguably in Viet Nam), there was a central authority to deal with and a defined end-goal and defined territories to hold or conquer. None of this is true any longer.
This conflict is different. We need a different way of fighting it or risk sinking to a level below our enemies. And then we've lost. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Bush is a traitor to what this country stands for. You're willing to sacrifice the way you live just to be safe. I can never understand conservatives, it's like they're always scared. Scared of god, scared of terrorist, scared of anything different that might challenge their way of life. I actually feel sorry for them, because they'll go through the rest of their life in fear and anger, scared of anything and everything that might say "boo".
- Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8eth3l: "Your statement is repulsive to democracy."
When is a statement in opposition to an ideology that favors the freedom of speech _ever_ repulsive? As much as you may hate it, unalienable rights are just that - unalienable. Terrorists have them the same as you and I. As soon as you take away those rights, that is when our Constitution goes down the *****. - Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7geekee, we were NEVER at war with terrorists. Logically that's not possible, because there's no such thing as a "terrorist." Same as there's no such thing as a "criminal." When you're at war, you can be at war with an ideology, a country, a military, etc. But you can't go to war against an action, which is what terrorism is, because anyone could do it. That would be like declaring war on all criminals in the US--it's not war, it's policing. There's a huge difference.
To prove my point--doesn't the overworked screening at airports, or new customs restrictions, remind you of a police state rather than a war? Although it's part of the "war on terror"... There can be no terror-free world. The war will never be successful. Just like the war on drugs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9How long before he puts this "activist" judge on a blacklist?
Man oh man, I cannot wait for 2008. - prot0col, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10They will just appeal and get a judge that is on the pay-role...or just ignore this and do as they wish anyway.
- nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I am not saying the two organizations in question aren't terrorists groups. The problem is that you can't ignore that people have inherent rights endowed by their creator. The founding fathers, the guys who created, fought for, and defended the declaration of independence believed it (READ THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF IT). Innocent people all deserve their inherent rights.
Making sure a person is guilty (by providing due process) of a crime before depriving them of these rights is our responsibility as human beings. And it's not in anyone's interest to be sent to hell for neglecting these responsibilities for the slightest temptation and fear.
I am sure Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin would be disgusted with anyone who doesn't believe in the principles of inherent rights for all humans, regardless of their respective geographic locations or parental lineage. - scarton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Um, yeah. "kill 'em all." Kill who? All the Iraqis? All the Iranians? All the Syrians? All the Muslims? Oh boy...that'd work.
OK. Let's not kill 'em all. Let's fight them. Hmmm...lemme see...where are they? Where are the battle lines? Where is the territory we're trying to conquer? Oh yeah...everywhere.
OK. So that approach doesn't work. Let's just kill all the terrorists. But who are they? How do we identify them? Oh, hell...it doesn't matter. Let's just kill or detain anyone we suspect of being a terrorist.
Whoops! Got the wrong one! That person actually liked us! Oh, but now his brothers are mad. His father's mad. His sisters are mad. They want to kill us. Oh look! Now they're "terrorists" too! Golly gosh gee wilikers! Now we've got a whole family of "terrorists" when we only had one before. The bodycount actually now goes negative: we've created more when only one existed.
OK. Back to force. We bomb a city or two until it's flattened. Maybe that'll make 'em capitulate. Oh yeah...who? Who's going to declare the "war" is over? With no central authority and a decentralized system, there's nobody to surrender! Maybe somebody stands up and says "we surrender" but now 10 more jump up and declare themselves in charge.
So where's your force gotten us? Nowhere. Zip. Nada. Worked real well in Iraq didn't it? Before we had an evil dictator. Now we've got a breeding ground for more terrorists and have engendered the hated of a bunch of people who probably didn't like us all that much before but now want to kill us. Yippie! Force! Will! Yeah, that's working.
It's old-school macho chickenhawks like you that'll keep this thing from ever being solved. Ever. It's a new world, son. Your obsolete ways ain't workin'. Time to think different. - oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7What the article says is that these two groups were unfairly labeled as terrorist organizations and other groups which carry a similar title should be investigated to see if they were unfairly labeled.
From TFA: "The case centered on two groups, the Liberation Tigers, which seeks a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, a political organization representing the interests of Kurds in Turkey."
The Fighting Tigers are a rebel group trying to fight the oppression of the Sri Lankan government. Calling them terrorists allows us to support a government without necessarily legitimately recognizing the validity of the government (which in this case is oppressing the people whome the Fighting Tigers are fighting for).
Also, FTA: "She said such services would include the humanitarian aid and rights training proposed by the plaintiffs." Under the current system, even the International Red Cross would be financially hampered for helping to assist anyone the US believes worked for/with the "terrorist organization". To me, this means we should be very selective and very conservative about which groups we officially designate as terrorist groups.
I would have less beef with giving these powers to a President who is actually intelligent, fair, and open to challenges to his decisions, but Bush is far from worthy.
"... but instead saw something that hurt America ..."
America was not hurt by this ruling. The President's attempt at overstepping his authority as Cheif Executive was kept in check. This is America's legal system at work. These two particular groups that were ruled upon have never attacked or terrorized America or any of its lands or people.
"If you'd like a site that's just your own version of reality with lots and lots of Hate-Bush and Blame-America backslapping"...
He's already on Digg. There's a lot of Hate-Bush, Blame-America stuff on here, but that's partly because there's a lot of that stuff floating areound in the states these days. Might be a reason for that...
"diggatards"
"9th Circus Court"
It seems to me that you are the one in your own version of reality and in need of venting at some site like the political polar opposite of dailykos. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9president without absolute power = hurting America
Great work there, just great. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because if there's one thing terrorists fight for, it's Constitutional rights. Oh, wait...
- short4lif2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The name of the judge is nowhere in the article?
- corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Phyltre
While having to take off my shoes, put my laptop in a separate bin, and throw away anything that is sharp, may be a pain, I don't see how you can compare that to a police state.
Evidently you don't know anyone who grew up in East Germany before the wall came down. You might want to read a book about real police states before you complain about how bad you have it in the US.
Its like the spoiled litte rich kid throwing a fit about not getting a new pony. You have a better life than you know. - PapaBoojum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3He has recently been made an unperson.
...or is that unmade as a person? Dammit! I double-plus need a newspeak refresher... - MiDri, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Why is dimitrisokolov getting modded down? He is right to a point -- I don't agree we should give up our civil liberties, however; if we are nuked by radicals (especially if they not tightly linked to Iran) the US could very easily fall into civil unrest and then civil war.
But you know, countries break up and get taken over... it happens... to think the US won't go through some huge metamorphosis is just silly, it has been proved time and time again throughout history that it happens. - MiDri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@dimitrisokolov -- There are more then enough of us who are "liberal" but still own and know how to use a firearm.
- thorndike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Didn't we learn anything from the McArthy era?
- Randomdude912, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Unfortunately, George Bush will not be able to win the war on terror. This is because he is a terrorist by his own definition. Isn't it weird, how the weapons of mass destruction didn't even exist? Also, President Bush declared that all major combat operations in Iraq have ended. I have to say, that maybe someone in the world has some sense, and will stand up and say something about the war.
I am not trying to undermine the government, but I am just pointing out the facts. George Bush is a hippocrit, and the only way for the world to be rid of terrorism, is the world to be rid of Bush.
By the way, what about all the innocent people who have died? All the innocent Iraqis. You don't see them on the news, do you? All you see is that our soldiers die. It just so happens that our soldiers are murderers, and are instructed to do so by George Bush.
I agree with the fact that terrorists cannot be negotiated with, but seriously, come on people. Once again, I repeat, I am not trying to undermine the government, just pointing out the facts.
What has the War on Terrorism accomplished you might ask?
The answer is NOTHING. All it has done is made the terrorist groups even more angry at America, and the War on Terror will just create more terror. I hope that I am not the only one who sees this. The facts are all out there.
We have all heard of the suicide bombings, the bombings from America, the shootings in Iraq, etc. Some people would say that those are just some things that happen in a war. The problem is, we are in a war that started under false ideas by the President, and this war will not end in our lifetime probably.
Lastly, I would like to say that the "War on Terrorism" is just Bush's way of sugar coating World War III. This is what the War on Terrorism really is, if you take a step back and look at it. Our own murderers, commisioned by the President, are being murdered by their murderers. "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"
-Ghandi
Maybe George Bush should see this quote. - dimitrisokolov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Phyltre
We are at war w/ radical islam and Al-Quaida. Osama Bin Laden wrote a declaration of war and declared war on the US. Here's the declaration link, read it sometime.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
As a result, we will and should fight Al Quaida wherever they are located.
Based on your logic we cannot fight poverty because it's a financial state, we cannot fight disease because it is a health state, hell we cannot fight an ideology either as that is a mental state. I guess we might as well give up and stick our heads in the sand. - secretmidnight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, Bush is a retard. He is a terrorist by his own definiton, I agree.
- corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@CopperFalcon
Ever read a history book? I would consider giving Nuclear weapon technology to the Russians (who gave it to china, who gave it to everyone else) an evil and unamerican thing.
My gosh, do they teach anything in History class any more? - Randomdude912, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the War on Terror is George Bush's way of sugar coating the World War III. If you take a step back and look at it, that is what this war really is.
Also, a quote from Ghandi: "An eye for an eye will make the world blind"
So, if they strike terror into the hearts of innocent Americans, we are now allowed to strike terror into their hearts? Ever hear of "Two wrongs don't make a right?" Come on people. - iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2George Bush will not be able to win the war on terror. This is because he is a terrorist by his own definition."
by Randomdude912
You nailed it! - eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@daisuke
What rights are unalienable? In certain circumstances rights can and frequently are taken away. For instance prisoners cannot vote.
Secondly, and becasue this is a Constitutional discussion, the Constitution does not protect the civil liberties of people in other countries.
the question is the restraint on Presidential power. This Court does not believe that Presidential power extends to financially crippling those who intend and profess to do us harm.
this battle between the courts, the President and Congress is not unique to W.
"Congress passed the Neutrality Act, applying a mandatory ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. Roosevelt opposed the act on the grounds that it penalized the victims of aggression such as Ethiopia, and that it restricted his right as President to assist friendly countries, but public support was overwhelming so he signed it."
"In October 1937, [Roosevelt] gave the Quarantine Speech aiming to contain aggressor nations. He proposed that warmongering states be treated as a public health menace and be "quarantined." Meanwhile he ***secretly*** stepped up a program to build long range submarines that could blockade Japan. When World War II broke out in 1939, Roosevelt rejected the Wilsonian neutrality stance and sought ways to assist Britain and France militarily. He began a regular ***secret*** correspondence with Winston Churchill discussing ways of supporting Britain." to get around Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Third_term.2C_1941-1945
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt
And don't think that Bush is the only President accused of being a war monger for dragging the US into a foreign war ...
"As Roosevelt took a firmer stance against the Axis Powers, American isolationists—including Charles Lindbergh and America First—attacked the President as an irresponsible warmonger"
We forget that Roosevelt had a major battle with public opinion of the US involvement in WWII because now we know that the war resulted in a positive outcome. no matter how hard it was to get there. We also overlook the lend-lease policy and the sevret arming of Britain behind congress' back.
We also forget it because we are young and pay more attinetion to Britney Spears and get our foreign policy news from Hollywood. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I guess we're not at war with terrorists anymore. This is the equivalent of telling FDR he can't freeze assets of groups funneling money to Germany, Italy or Japan during WWII. This ruling definitely tries to limit the presidents power as commander in chief. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to you to decide. Certainly having this power can lead to abuse, especially in a war against a number of vaguely defined enemies
- arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Pick up a gun and go fight then - Leave the rest of us out of your blind, foolish following.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Conservatives learned one lesson: fear works. Get people scared enough, and you can trample their rights in the name of security. Hell, get them scared enough, and they'll declare such rights 'evil' and 'unamerican'.
- swit012, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If you guys really want to "kill all terrorists", the most effective way would be to use the most powerful, destructive and toxic weapon at your disposal: the American culture.
This is really the goal isn't it? To make the middle east just like America? It's not so much about democracy as it is making them "like us". Why not do what any empire would do: colonize. Send in all the poor people and the puritans. Set up McDonald's, Starbucks and Wal-Mart. Install your own TV stations broadcasting American soap operas and porno. Intermarry with the local people until racial and cultural divides blur.
Just don't pretend you're going to go in, flatten their country and then let them "self determine". You don't want them to self determine, you just want them to do as they're told. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I really can't figure out why people like you come to this site. I mean, if we can't figure out articles, and lack the diggmaster tag, why do you even try?
- musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1But but but but but the fascist Bush was turned down, who cares who won he lost!
/end sarcasm - spoonard, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9Well Dubya will ring out his key buzz-words: Al-Quieda, Terrorists, and 9/11 and all the right people in the right places will nod and agree and give him what ever he wants. Just like always. Someone kill that *****!
- musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yeah, we can get someone good like Rudy Giuliani. Do you think Bush would waste his time blacklisting a circuit court judge? Wait til it gets to a higher level then they will be blacklisted.
- corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Considering the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court on the country, I wouldn't consider this a victory for the Constitution or Civil rights, nor would I expect this ruling to stand. Also, considering that two non-US terrorist organizations are celebrating this victory, as well as asorted left-wing loons, I would call this a ruling a failure.
BTW, has anyone seen the Constitutional powers of the President in times of war vs, the powers of the Judiciary in times of war?
Context people... it can show you alot. - dimitrisokolov, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The only way any war can be won is by force. There is no other way. Liberals love to think you can "negotiate", but that only works with reasonable people. If two people are playing chess and one side makes a move and the other side smacks all the pieces off the board, the game cannot be won. You can negotiate with terrorists if you convert to their version of Islam and follow them. Otherwise, you are the devil and must be killed.
Look, this war is already over and the west has lost because people like you don't really understand the threat. The terrorists are willing to commit suicide for their cause and we are not which means they possess superior will power as they will do whatever is necessary to secure final victory. You will not do the same, hell people like you don't even want to tap a phone, search a bag or ooooooo racial profile.
The terrorists are 10x more commited to their cause as you are to your own survival which is, evolutionarily speaking, shear stupidity.
Radical Islam wants to take over the world the same as the Nazis. They have said this numerous times. The Iranian president wants Israel wiped off the map.
The difference is the radical Islamists and Nazis is that the terrorists have a voice called God in their heads that allows them to commit suicide and die willingly as martyrs. The Nazis eventually were defeated and realized it and gave up because they eventually just gave up. Today they are marginalized and totally ineffective other than a few skinheads.
This is not a battle of minds. Repeat after me. This is not a battle of the minds.
Terrorists have their religion and their version of it and their minds made up. This is a battle of their way or our way.
You cannot change their minds. Repeat after me. You cannot change their minds.
If you believe in evolution, a creationist will never change your mind and turn you into a creationist, period, end of story, unless you are really, really weak.
This war is already over because the terrorists have superior will power, we are not taking them seriously and we are just not fighting to win. The terrorists don't want "democracy" or any other *****.
They want a world under Islamic rule and that is what they are fighting and commiting suicide for.
If you think you can persuade them in a conversation or by negotiations that the world should not be under Islamic rule, then buy a ticket and fly over to Iran or Iraq and talk to the radical leaders and let me know when they convert to your view point. - john2kx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3don't digg JohnCrichton down, it's obvious sarcasm.
- Nonleg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Yay, the Tamil "separatists" can kill Aussies and generally blow stuff up, and only be referred to as a "separate political faction."
Call a spade a spade. I don't see any of you bitching because 3/4 of the world refers to Bush, America, Israel, and anyone that dare not follow the "world consensus view" as terrorists. Define terrorists however you want, they all still need to be killed. - corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Ya, Mcarthy was right. The Truman and FDR administrations were loaded with traitors.
- geodescent, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2American justice? Like Haiti?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3'terra!'
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is