America, the land of unlimited secret detention [Archive]

Troll

13th January 2004, 01:40 AM

I've thought long and hard before posting this, seriously. But I've always said I had issues with the Patriot Act. But I also have had issues with letting people run around willy-nilly, as it were, and free to do whatever grave crime they may be suspected ofplanning.

But given my stance on guns and assorted firearms and personal responsibility, I have to say what I have to say.

I am willing to let people die and suffer the fate of a terror attack. To assume you may have stopped someone in advance of such a thing is the same as saying we prevented a murder by preventing a guy the right to own a gun. I'm all about personal responsibility, and am able to admit that in even the most extreme cases.

No one is guilty of a crime they did not commit, so we have to let them commit the crime before we can accuse them of such. Granted we do have laws concerning conspiracy to commit. and I'll allow for that if we can prove it, but even then, they get a trial.

So in accordance with the laws of the land, we either prove conspiracy to commit, and try the guy or we let him go and either commit or not commit the crime. If he doesn't, no harm no foul, if he does, it's easier to convict

epepke

13th January 2004, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Is that true? Does the US constitution really apply to everyone who sets foot in the US, regardless of how they got there (illegally or not)? (I did some reading of the US constitution and bill of rights; sometimes it uses the word 'person', other times it uses the word 'citizen'. How has the constitution been interpreted in the past?)

It has usually been interpreted to mean that the rights associated with due process and the other rights in the first ten amendments apply to anyone who sets foot in the US.

Obviously, other rights such as the right to vote do not.

Interestingly, non-citizens can join the armed forces, and it's probably the quickest way to get citizenship.

epepke

13th January 2004, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by LFTKBS
I'm pretty stunned that we seem to agree on the Padilla detainment. What's really surprising, though, is that this is a direct example that illustrates the excessive power that the executive branch has snatched, and which appears to go unchallenged by the Congress or the courts or the people. How can the original post be "dramatic" is this is precisely the kind of thing that can and does happen?

Padilla seems a bit of a strange example, since back in December, the 2nd US Court of appeals ruled that Padilla must be released, presumably to civilian authorities, within 30 days.

How does this support the idea that it goes "unchallenged by the Congress or the courts?"

As for the people who challenge it, you can't throw a rock in a college town without hitting six of them. It may not be an effective challenge, but that's mostly because the majority of the left over the past fifteen years or so seem to have voluntarily given up any actual political power or credibility in return for the ability to act aloof, jeering, and smugly supercilious.

Chaos

13th January 2004, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by Troll
I've thought long and hard before posting this, seriously. But I've always said I had issues with the Patriot Act. But I also have had issues with letting people run around willy-nilly, as it were, and free to do whatever grave crime they may be suspected ofplanning.

But given my stance on guns and assorted firearms and personal responsibility, I have to say what I have to say.

I am willing to let people die and suffer the fate of a terror attack. To assume you may have stopped someone in advance of such a thing is the same as saying we prevented a murder by preventing a guy the right to own a gun. I'm all about personal responsibility, and am able to admit that in even the most extreme cases.

No one is guilty of a crime they did not commit, so we have to let them commit the crime before we can accuse them of such. Granted we do have laws concerning conspiracy to commit. and I'll allow for that if we can prove it, but even then, they get a trial.

So in accordance with the laws of the land, we either prove conspiracy to commit, and try the guy or we let him go and either commit or not commit the crime. If he doesn't, no harm no foul, if he does, it's easier to convict

Hear, hear!

I´ve always thought that the "lock anyone up who is even suspected of being suspected of doing something" approach is the way of the coward. It is good to see that there are still some people who value their principles and their constitution higher than their "right" to any arbitrary and overblown reaction to some - real or perceived - threats.

Plus, if you look around in the world, or back into history, you will quickly see that this approach ("innocent people (that's what they are prior to a conviction) being held without charge, without council, without contact with family, without any access to due process of any kind", to quote hgc) is and was only applied in dictatorships of every kind (the Soviet Union, Iraq, Cuba, the People´s Republic of North Korea, to name just a few) - and in the USA. You do know that, once again, you are staying in very illustrious company, don´t you?

ceptimus

13th January 2004, 03:41 AM

The prisoners who are released without charge will be payed huge compensations for unlawful imprisonment. This will be payed by USA taxpayers.

bug_girl

13th January 2004, 03:56 AM

really? where did you hear that ceptimus? i suspect they will get a hearty handshake, and not much else.

speaking as an american, the whole thing creeps me out, and i feel like i've woken up in a different country. I see many of the same parallels that Chaos does.

I especially see it in the way my international students are treated. each month there are new and more strict rules *for me* about monitoring *their* movement, and new reporting rules for them.

LFTKBS

13th January 2004, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by epepke

Padilla seems a bit of a strange example, since back in December, the 2nd US Court of appeals ruled that Padilla must be released, presumably to civilian authorities, within 30 days.

How does this support the idea that it goes "unchallenged by the Congress or the courts?"

As for the people who challenge it, you can't throw a rock in a college town without hitting six of them. It may not be an effective challenge, but that's mostly because the majority of the left over the past fifteen years or so seem to have voluntarily given up any actual political power or credibility in return for the ability to act aloof, jeering, and smugly supercilious.

1) AFAIK, Padilla's still in custody, at least until the 18th of January. Even if he's released, which he won't be, that's a hell of a long time to be held against your will without being charged with a crime.

2) It hasn't been challenged by the Congress because they are all either mealymouthed wimps or Reaganbots. Republicans and Democrats alike passed the USA PATRIOT act and authorized Bush to go to war for as long as he sees fit. They can all go to hell.

3) It's been challenged by a few courts - I apologize for my exaggeration - but for the most part, old rich white men on the bench are less interested in justice and more interested in the status quo; that's how they get nice, cushy appointments.

4) Sure, there are a few college lefties who oppose the Bush administration - but for every one of those, there's one Freeper who couldn't care whether or not Bush eats babies or rapes nuns or holds black mass in the Oval Office. Everyone else either doesn't care or says "well, he's the president. He knows what's going on. Merf merf merf."

If I myself act smug or supercilious etc etc, I apologize, but if I'm going to treat Christians that way, why not hawks and brown(noses|shirts)?

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by corplinx

Was Jose Padilla a fluke caused by an overreaction to a terrible crisis or was it standard operating procedure to illegally detain a US citizen indefinitely?

So,...if a proven innocent person is ever sent to jail in error I guess this means our system of justice is flawed and we should release anyone detained by this flawed system??

Strawman I know, but it seems that that's the way some folks are headed with this issue. Personally I breathe a bit easier knowing the government is locking up terrorism suspects. Far easier than if I knew the government was turning a blind eye to them until a terrorist act had ocurred. Am I uneasy that the system is flawed? Yes. Am I ready to scrap it? Not just no, but hell no.

-z

(and hey, I posted all that without mentioning the proverbial baby and it's bathwater. ) ....DOH!

shemp

13th January 2004, 07:22 AM

I guess when it comes to our citizens, we may as well throw this out the window:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Tmy

13th January 2004, 07:23 AM

This is just the type of behavior that we condem in other countries. Isnt this the reason why we have a bill o rights? SO they govt just cant sweep in and take you away without ANY do process.

Its not like we have to let everyone go free, just have a check n balance. Is that so dangerous, to have a hearing in front of a judge? Its not like it all has to be broacast on CNN.

I cant belive so many people are OK with this. Of course these are the same people who cry bloody injustice when they get a parking ticket.

Graham

13th January 2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

So,...if a proven innocent person is ever sent to jail in error I guess this means our system of justice is flawed and we should release anyone detained by this flawed system??

Strawman I know, but it seems that that's the way some folks are headed with this issue. Personally I breathe a bit easier knowing the government is locking up terrorism suspects. Far easier than if I knew the government was turning a blind eye to them until a terrorist act had ocurred. Am I uneasy that the system is flawed? Yes. Am I ready to scrap it? Not just no, but hell no.

-z

(and hey, I posted all that without mentioning the proverbial baby and it's bathwater. ) ....DOH!

The concept of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is integral to your justice system, Rik.

Throwing people in jail indefinitely on suspicion of having committed a criminal activity, worse on merely the word of the authorities that there is suspicion of criminal activity (with no requirement for them to justify that suspicion to anybody but themselves) is completely contrary to that.

No one is suggesting that the system be scrapped, quite the opposite.

Graham

Shane Costello

13th January 2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Chaos:
Plus, if you look around in the world, or back into history, you will quickly see that this approach ("innocent people (that's what they are prior to a conviction) being held without charge, without council, without contact with family, without any access to due process of any kind", to quote hgc) is and was only applied in dictatorships of every kind (the Soviet Union, Iraq, Cuba, the People´s Republic of North Korea, to name just a few) - and in the USA. You do know that, once again, you are staying in very illustrious company, don´t you?[/QUOTE]

Actually internment of suspects without trial was applied to the IRA by successive Irish governments (democratically elected) to great effect, as 80 years of unbroken democracy testifies to. In times of war, they went to the extent of executing people without trial.

hgc

13th January 2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

So,...if a proven innocent person is ever sent to jail in error I guess this means our system of justice is flawed and we should release anyone detained by this flawed system??

Strawman I know, but it seems that that's the way some folks are headed with this issue. Personally I breathe a bit easier knowing the government is locking up terrorism suspects. Far easier than if I knew the government was turning a blind eye to them until a terrorist act had ocurred. Am I uneasy that the system is flawed? Yes. Am I ready to scrap it? Not just no, but hell no.

-z

(and hey, I posted all that without mentioning the proverbial baby and it's bathwater. ) ....DOH! Not only is that a strawman, as you've admitted, but it also presents a false dichotomy -- between locking up suspects without charge and turning a blind eye to terrorism.

It's not like an innocent person was accidentally convicted here. We all know that happens, and I think we all favor trying to keep that from happening. Here we have a specific policy of ignoring the most basic rights we take for granted, based on the say-so of a government on a war footing. I trust this government to fight that war on the battlefield. I don't trust them to protect my rights outside the context of the constitution.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by hgc
Not only is that a strawman, as you've admitted, but it also presents a false dichotomy -- between locking up suspects without charge and turning a blind eye to terrorism.

It's not like an innocent person was accidentally convicted here. We all know that happens, and I think we all favor trying to keep that from happening. Here we have a specific policy of ignoring the most basic rights we take for granted, based on the say-so of a government on a war footing. I trust this government to fight that war on the battlefield. I don't trust them to protect my rights outside the context of the constitution.

After the war is over I'm sure we'll give Jose Padilla, et al a nice monument like the one in DC comemorating the Japanese internment camps of WWII. Injustice happens...if it's preventable, it should be prevented. In wartime though it's a hard call to make between preserving national security and preventing injustice. If there were no 9/11,...no war,....then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But Padilla was not jailed in a vacuum....one must consider the context in which he was detained. Just as one must remember that the US did not lock up the Japanese merely because they were different...were it not for WWII there would have been no detention. We all can look backward and tell with certainty that the Japanese detentions were wrong....but in the post Pearl Harbour climate I bet most folks thought it was a real good idea.

-z

epepke

13th January 2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by LFTKBS
1) AFAIK, Padilla's still in custody, at least until the 18th of January. Even if he's released, which he won't be, that's a hell of a long time to be held against your will without being charged with a crime.

Yeah, the 30-day period hasn't elapsed yet. We'll see what happens when that happens.

Despite the Bill of Rights, nothing happens speedily. But having it happen at all is faster than not having it happen.

I think that voicing support for what does happen is better than dismissing it entirely because it isn't good enough. Because when you fail to make the distinction between something and nothing, you always get nothing.

2) It hasn't been challenged by the Congress because they are all either mealymouthed wimps or Reaganbots. Republicans and Democrats alike passed the USA PATRIOT act and authorized Bush to go to war for as long as he sees fit. They can all go to hell.

Again, although I think that Congress has become too much like an auxiliary to the President, the attitude of "they can all go to hell" is an abnegation of civic rights and civic duties.

Quick quiz. Who was the one person who voted against the PATRIOT act? No web searches. I wrote him a letter of appreciation and support.

3) It's been challenged by a few courts - I apologize for my exaggeration - but for the most part, old rich white men on the bench are less interested in justice and more interested in the status quo; that's how they get nice, cushy appointments.

Again, you know, for all its faults, I think that if there is a hope, it primarily lies in the courts. Like it or not, they have done some good things lately. But it's much more fun to say "uh huh, Beavis, old rich white men."

4) Sure, there are a few college lefties who oppose the Bush administration - but for every one of those, there's one Freeper who couldn't care whether or not Bush eats babies or rapes nuns or holds black mass in the Oval Office. Everyone else either doesn't care or says "well, he's the president. He knows what's going on. Merf merf merf."

This is probably a great line for picking up Goth chicks in coffehouses. But, while I do not denigrate that as a recreational activity, there's something to life other than that. Consider it this way. In spite of the fact that votes were siphoned to Nader, and in spite of the fact that the Governor of Florida was Bush's brother and was probably plooking the Supervisor of Elections, Bush almost lost.

I, a Floridian, was in Atlanta at the time and so did not vote in the election (absentee ballots being a big hassle and all). After a few months of Bush, I went around and apologized to people saying that it was my fault. This was sort of a joke, because I'm one person. It was also sort of not a joke, because while I am rare, there are probably enough people like me who, if they had voted, could have slam-dunked Bush back to his Texas ranch and a Jack Daniels fog. You can be sure that I will be voting in the next election, even if it means pushing an absentee ballot with my nose from Alaska.

If I myself act smug or supercilious etc etc, I apologize, but if I'm going to treat Christians that way, why not hawks and brown(noses|shirts)?

I don't have anything against being smug and supercilious per se. I just think it should be earned. Thirty years ago leftists were willing to risk jail and beatings for what they believe in. Nowadays, most leftists can hardly be arsed to attend a weekend protest so that they can light up in public and chant "Bush is Really Stupid!" The rest of the time, they think it's kewl to "boycott" elections.

I'm not quite at the willing-to-be-beaten level, but I do try to support what I think will make a difference, use logic, write letters to representatives, vote, submit amicus briefs, etc.

fishbob

13th January 2004, 08:00 AM

Personally I breathe a bit easier knowing the government is locking up terrorism suspects. Far easier than if I knew the government was turning a blind eye to them until a terrorist act had ocurred. You missed the point.

The government is falling down on the job by simply holding a suspect. Law enforcement has rules and procedures for investigating suspects, surveillance of suspects, gathering evidence on suspects.

Turning a blind eye is not one of the real options. I thought throwing the Bill of Rights out the window was not a real option either, but I guess I was wrong. Fear of the big bad terrorists is not a legit excuse to ignore our rule of law.

shemp

13th January 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

After the war is over I'm sure we'll give Jose Padilla, et al a nice monument like the one in DC comemorating the Japanese internment camps of WWII. Injustice happens...if it's preventable, it should be prevented. In wartime though it's a hard call to make between preserving national security and preventing injustice. If there were no 9/11,...no war,....then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But Padilla was not jailed in a vacuum....one must consider the context in which he was detained. Just as one must remember that the US did not lock up the Japanese merely because they were different...were it not for WWII there would have been no detention. We all can look backward and tell with certainty that the Japanese detentions were wrong....but in the post Pearl Harbour climate I bet most folks thought it was a real good idea.

-z

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

[The Congress shall have Power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Would you care to point me to an official Declaration of War by Congress, or to a constitutional amendment giving the President power to declare war? I do not believe that a statement by the President that we are at war is considered constitutionally sufficient.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by fishbob
You missed the point.

The government is falling down on the job by simply holding a suspect. Law enforcement has rules and procedures for investigating suspects, surveillance of suspects, gathering evidence on suspects.

Turning a blind eye is not one of the real options. I thought throwing the Bill of Rights out the window was not a real option either, but I guess I was wrong. Fear of the big bad terrorists is not a legit excuse to ignore our rule of law.

The civilian "rule of law" has no place on a battlefield. Prosecuting individuals who comit terrorist acts is a joke. Most of these guys want to die in the act. How does one "bring to justice" Mohammed Atta?

"Brining the terrorists to justice" was the policy of the Clinton admin. This policy failed to stop the twin bombings of the US embassies in Kenya/Tanzania. It didn't stop the bombing of Khobar towers. It didn't stop the bombing of the USS Cole. It didn't stop the bombing of the WTC the first time, nor on 9/11.

(It did stop the planned bombing of 12 US airliners over the Pacific with the capture of Ramzi Yusef,...but only because we got lucky since Yusef made a mortal mistake in the Philipines which led to his capture in Pakistan)

OTOH, there have been NO SUCCESSFUL MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST US CIVILIAN TARGETS since the WOT began. As a policy, war on terrorism has protected us better than "Bringing the terrorists to justice" ever did. We have a track record to look at, and the WOT's track record is suberb.

-z

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 09:03 AM

LFTKBS

13th January 2004, 10:54 AM

Rik - why don't you just tell us which parts of the Constitution you'd like us all to forget about so that we can stop guessing your motives here?

Just list the items Emperor Rikzilla would cover with Wite-Out.

Then explain why, after we've thrown out that upon which our democracy is based, it would even be worth it to be an American citizen.

DavidJames

13th January 2004, 11:00 AM

"Rik - why don't you just tell us which parts of the Constitution you'd like us all to forget about so that we can stop guessing your motives here?"

I'm guessing the answer isn't so important as long as the targets remain them and not us.

Shaun from Scotland

13th January 2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Actually internment of suspects without trial was applied to the IRA by successive Irish governments (democratically elected) to great effect, as 80 years of unbroken democracy testifies to. In times of war, they went to the extent of executing people without trial.

Not only the Irish govt, but the British Govt did this do.

With disastrous results............

epepke

13th January 2004, 11:18 AM

shemp

13th January 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

In the Army we had a name for guys like you, Shemp. The $hit-house lawyer.

Was there a declaration of war during the "Korean War"?? How 'bout the "Vietnam War"?? Do you think a state of war is something that only exists when the US Congress says it does?

-z

I have a word for you: fascist. A man who would have cheered Hitler on when he ripped up the German constitution. A man who has no real principles, who thinks might makes right, and that the end justifies the means. A man who thinks that it is worth destrying what we are saving in order to save it.

I have another word for you: *********.

Matabiri

13th January 2004, 11:23 AM

Maybe it's time to break out those guns Americans are so keen on protecting their liberties with...

Tony

13th January 2004, 11:31 AM

Anyone who supports gun control, federal welfare, federally funded public schools, the EPA, the IRS, federal drug laws, compulsory voting and any other unconstitutional institution has zero credibility to speak on this issue in terms of constitutionality. If you are willing to stomp on the constitution in one respect, it's disingenuous to complain when someone does it in another respect.

Chaos

13th January 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by shemp

I have a word for you: fascist. A man who would have cheered Hitler on when he ripped up the German constitution. A man who has no real principles, who thinks might makes right, and that the end justifies the means. A man who thinks that it is worth destrying what we are saving in order to save it.

I have another word for you: *********.

More likely, he would have been one of those who supported Hitler because he promised to protect Germans from the "EVIL, EVIL communists" and the "EVIL, EVIL jews"...

shemp

13th January 2004, 11:38 AM

And another thing Dickheadzilla. There is a damn good reason that this nation's founders put the power of declaration of war into the hands of a group, and not into the hands of one man. They knew damn well from experience what one man with the power to wage war could do. They were sick of kings and despots. They wanted to ensure that no individual could bring this country into war. They also wanted to ensure that there would be a group of people who would consider things carefully before sending young men off to die.

This is why we suffered the Vietnam "War". Because Congress wimped out and let the President have his way. This is what is going on now. Whether this "war" is right or wrong, there is no good reason for us to throw out the intentions of our founding fathers and give ourselves over to our own brand of despotism.

I'm glad to see that you think it is appropriate to toss out chosen parts of the Constitution. Perhaps you should go live somewhere where one man can make up the laws as he sees fit.

hgc

13th January 2004, 11:43 AM

Note to self: never call Shemp a lawyer. ;)

Luke T.

13th January 2004, 11:49 AM

This is what makes terrorism so hard to deal with. We have four categories of "detainees," for lack of a better word.

U.S. citizens suspected of terror acts caught on U.S. territory
Illegal immigrants suspected of terror activities caught on U.S. soil
Foreign nationals suspected of terror activities caught on foreign soil
U.S. citizens suspected of terror activities caught on foreign soil

I don't believe they should all be handled the same and accorded the same rights.

The only category that deserves full protection of the Constitution is the U.S. citizen caught on U.S. soil.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 11:54 AM

hgc

13th January 2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
This is what makes terrorism so hard to deal with. We have four categories of "detainees," for lack of a better word.

U.S. citizens suspected of terror acts caught on U.S. territory
Illegal immigrants suspected of terror activities caught on U.S. soil
Foreign nationals suspected of terror activities caught on foreign soil
U.S. citizens suspected of terror activities caught on foreign soil

I don't believe they should all be handled the same and accorded the same rights.

The only category that deserves full protection of the Constitution is the U.S. citizen caught on U.S. soil. I'll point out again that the constitution makes no such distinctions. This falls into the making-it-up-as-you-go category.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by shemp
And another thing Dickheadzilla. There is a damn good reason that this nation's founders put the power of declaration of war into the hands of a group, and not into the hands of one man. They knew damn well from experience what one man with the power to wage war could do. They were sick of kings and despots. They wanted to ensure that no individual could bring this country into war. They also wanted to ensure that there would be a group of people who would consider things carefully before sending young men off to die.

This is why we suffered the Vietnam "War". Because Congress wimped out and let the President have his way. This is what is going on now. Whether this "war" is right or wrong, there is no good reason for us to throw out the intentions of our founding fathers and give ourselves over to our own brand of despotism.

I'm glad to see that you think it is appropriate to toss out chosen parts of the Constitution. Perhaps you should go live somewhere where one man can make up the laws as he sees fit.

Well Shemp,

I'm glad you are so passionate about the motives and methods of the founders of our nation. I too am impressed with their foresight, however I do not believe that they were super-heros. They could not think of everything, they could not see the future. They led their fellow citizens to WAR before there was even a country to be a citizen of. Why did they do this? Were they warmongers(TM)?? No, in order to give birth to this nation they pledged their: "Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor."

We must honor their accomplishment by doing no less in defense of the nation they created. The Japanese internments during war were an injustice and an all around abuse of the constitutional rights of those Japanese-Americans involved. It was a shameful period, yet it was wartime and once the war was over our constitutional democracy was not mortally harmed. We comitted an attrocious act of genocide against American Indians in the first 150 years of our nation's existence...we held humans in bondage and fought a bloody civil war that almost destroyed the nation itself,...yet our constitution....the same one our founders first crafted....still exists. Amazing isn't it?

So now in your infinite wisdom you posit that I'm:
A man who thinks that it is worth destrying what we are saving in order to save it.

If our constitution has survived all the wars, intrigue, and double-dealing of 226 years of bloody history, I seriously doubt that the WOT as prosecuted by GWB and co will "destry"(sic) it.

-z

OH, BTW...I did not call you the $hithous lawyer in order to insult you personally. The "$hithouse lawyer" really was an Army term for a useless know-it-all. I know lawyer is an evil and vile term... I retract it, so no need for you to freak out. You are merely a useless know-it-all. Feel better? ;)

Tmy

13th January 2004, 12:33 PM

Im tired of this "WAR" bullshiznit. War has not been declared. The govt wants all these wartime powers only when it suits them.

Im gonna try this. Ill tell my creditors I wont be paying them cause Ive declared bankruptcy. When they asked why I havent filed in Bankruptcy Court Ill just say "Now is not the time for technicalities! TERROR!! TERROR!!!!"

Luke T.

13th January 2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by hgc
I'll point out again that the constitution makes no such distinctions. This falls into the making-it-up-as-you-go category.

No, it falls into the "IMHO" category.

By the way, the Constitution doesn't make a distinction for POWs, either.

shemp

13th January 2004, 12:35 PM

I stand by everything I called you. Far be it from me to wimp out like you.

I'll have to visit Planet Rikzilla sometime. It must be a wonderful place, where the laws mean nothing more than the paper they are printed on.

Cleon

13th January 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by shemp
I'll have to visit Planet Rikzilla sometime. It must be a wonderful place, where the laws mean nothing more than the paper they are printed on.

"Wonderful?" Scares the living hell out of me.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by shemp
I stand by everything I called you. Far be it from me to wimp out like you.

I'll have to visit Planet Rikzilla sometime. It must be a wonderful place, where the laws mean nothing more than the paper they are printed on.

Vindictive. I like it! :D Goading you into showing your true colors has been fun, but it indeed was inadvertent. You are an angry little man aren't you? ;) Why don't you show me how big and tough you are; go back, read my posts and offer a real effort at rebuttal.

Your penchant for name calling is amusing to a point, but that moment has passed. Challenge me intellectually by actually making some sense as Suddenly does. He is a worthy advocate of the liberal POV,...you however are a boorish joke.

Farewell,
-z

shemp

13th January 2004, 06:55 PM

Au contraire, tis you who have shown your one stripe down the back. Once again, rikzilla, who blows down his enemies with his odoriferous breath, shows that he wishes to burn the Constitution to save the nation. We must be a pretty sad nation if we can't afford to afford American citizens the right to a fair and open trial.

What is Bush afraid of? Surely he can't be worried about whatever Jose Padilla has to say, can he? No, his fear is that Mr. Padilla might just avail himself of a good lawyer, mount a proper defense, and (horrors!) be acquitted. Such a result would certainly bring the nation down in flames, yessiree Bob! In reality, of course, it might help bring Bush's pathetic candidacy down in flames.

But that's not why we're here. We're here because Mr. Rikzilla has challenged us to reply to the content (pitiful that it is) of his posts. Very well, let us begin:

So,...if a proven innocent person is ever sent to jail in error I guess this means our system of justice is flawed and we should release anyone detained by this flawed system??

Strawman I know, but it seems that that's the way some folks are headed with this issue. Personally I breathe a bit easier knowing the government is locking up terrorism suspects. Far easier than if I knew the government was turning a blind eye to them until a terrorist act had ocurred. Am I uneasy that the system is flawed? Yes. Am I ready to scrap it? Not just no, but hell no.

Hmm, nobody said anything about releasing anyone detained. Strawman indeed.

But as for the second point, as usual, Mr. Rikzilla sees all in black and white. Perhaps he should upgrade his brain so that he may see a few shades of color? He presents only two ways to go, either lock up all terrorist suspects or turn a blind eye to them. Well, I have news for you. The government IS locking all terrorism suspects, as they indeed should! Where we differ is that you believe they should be detained indefinitely without trial, whereas I say that those who are us citizens are guaranteed a fair and open trail under the Constitution. How can any decent American be afraid of a citizen getting his day in court? Apparently, both you and Mr. Bush are.

Nobody said the system should be scrapped, just that the rules should be followed.

Next up to the plate:

After the war is over I'm sure we'll give Jose Padilla, et al a nice monument like the one in DC comemorating the Japanese internment camps of WWII. Injustice happens...if it's preventable, it should be prevented. In wartime though it's a hard call to make between preserving national security and preventing injustice. If there were no 9/11,...no war,....then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But Padilla was not jailed in a vacuum....one must consider the context in which he was detained. Just as one must remember that the US did not lock up the Japanese merely because they were different...were it not for WWII there would have been no detention. We all can look backward and tell with certainty that the Japanese detentions were wrong....but in the post Pearl Harbour climate I bet most folks thought it was a real good idea.

The difference between the present situation and WWII is that no war has been officially declared. You want us to wait until after this "war" is over to seek justice. Why must we wait? Let's see justice done right now! Give Mr. Padilla and others a fair and open trail.

The civilian "rule of law" has no place on a battlefield. Prosecuting individuals who comit terrorist acts is a joke. Most of these guys want to die in the act. How does one "bring to justice" Mohammed Atta?

"Brining the terrorists to justice" was the policy of the Clinton admin. This policy failed to stop the twin bombings of the US embassies in Kenya/Tanzania. It didn't stop the bombing of Khobar towers. It didn't stop the bombing of the USS Cole. It didn't stop the bombing of the WTC the first time, nor on 9/11.

(It did stop the planned bombing of 12 US airliners over the Pacific with the capture of Ramzi Yusef,...but only because we got lucky since Yusef made a mortal mistake in the Philipines which led to his capture in Pakistan)

OTOH, there have been NO SUCCESSFUL MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST US CIVILIAN TARGETS since the WOT began. As a policy, war on terrorism has protected us better than "Bringing the terrorists to justice" ever did. We have a track record to look at, and the WOT's track record is suberb.

This has nothing to do with the thread so far. The issue is whether the US government can ignore the constitution by refusing to extend its protections to US citizens such as Mr. Padilla. Others can be dealt with as international law sees fit. Stick to the issue here.

The rest of your posts in this thread can be ignored, as they simple involve name calling and stick throwing.

So, to sum it up, the Bush gang violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court validates the illegality, and Rikzilla and the majority of Americans think this is just peachy. Just another step down the road to empire.

P.S.: If you paid any attention to my posts, you'd know that I'm an angry BIG man.

corplinx

13th January 2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by hgc
I'll point out again that the constitution makes no such distinctions.

Actually, the spirit of the fifth amendment (and most of the letter) support the idea of locking up Jose Padilla. I am against it because I would rather see him made an example of using normal US law.

The only way they can continue to hold Padilla as I see it is if they declare he will be tried in front of a military tribunal. This is because the sixth states in plain terms that a criminal prosecution should be speedy. In other words, now that we have held him like this they have locked us into trying him by tribunal.

The more I look into the 5+6 amendments and read notes about them, the less I think his detention is illegal.

corplinx

13th January 2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by shemp
This has nothing to do with the thread so far. The issue is whether the US government can ignore the constitution by refusing to extend its protections to US citizens such as Mr. Padilla.

From the Constitution.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger"

It seems Mr. Padilla's lockup is arguable (even though we all support the right to a speedy trial). His constitutional right to a speedy trial seems to be waived _if_ it is not a criminal prosecution (as per the sixth amendment).

As I see there are two sides, one group thinks its constitutionally sound and the other does not. The last time I checked, this sort of matter was settled by courts who interpret the constitution. I am not even pretending to be a constitutional scholar.

My only bone of contention in this thread is the first post which I feel distorted reality to present a Stalinesque view of the current administration.

fishbob

13th January 2004, 10:01 PM

OTOH, there have been NO SUCCESSFUL MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST US CIVILIAN TARGETS since the WOT began. As a policy, war on terrorism has protected us better than "Bringing the terrorists to justice" ever did. We have a track record to look at, and the WOT's track record is suberb. Howzabout Indonesia, Howzabout Saudi, Howzabout Afghanistan and Iraq and Chechnya.

Oh, you mean in the US. OK. Locking up Padilla, whittling away at the constitution, and having a minimum wage guy in a uniform sniff my shoes at the airport has suberbly protected US citizens from terrorist attacks at home.

The administration has failed to figure out how to legally protect us from terrorists, so we are stuck with half-baked procedures and half-illegal policies. I feel so much better.

The Fool

14th January 2004, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

We all can look backward and tell with certainty that the Japanese detentions were wrong....but in the post Pearl Harbour climate I bet most folks thought it was a real good idea.

-z
Its a pity its going to take you an equally long time to figure out that the latest batch of political prisoners is an equally silly Idea..I suppose some people just never learn.

So until your war against a word is "over" (how do you win a war against a word?) Its all bets off as far as Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happyness is concerned.

It saddens me when I think of the sacrifices your ancestors made for the freedom you so cheerfully toss in the gutter.

OK, You can go back to standing to attention and yelling "Sir... Yes sir!!" whenever your rights and freedoms are suspended indefinitely. One day they may come for you rik...But don't worry, I'll still argue for your release against people with your views.

rikzilla

14th January 2004, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by shemp
Au contraire, tis you who have shown your one stripe down the back. Once again, rikzilla, who blows down his enemies with his odoriferous breath, shows that he wishes to burn the Constitution to save the nation. We must be a pretty sad nation if we can't afford to afford American citizens the right to a fair and open trial.

blah, blah, blah,...boring. :rolleyes: Why don't you actually say something? Your posts are overblown emotional tripe.

(snip) --- Shemp continues to say nothing while using many words. Let's cut to the chase:

So, to sum it up, the Bush gang violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court validates the illegality, and Rikzilla and the majority of Americans think this is just peachy. Just another step down the road to empire.

P.S.: If you paid any attention to my posts, you'd know that I'm an angry BIG man.

Ok angry fat man. Please do not give yourself a heart attack. Take your meds, and lower your cholesterol!

As far as your summary, let's examine it since it sums up your beliefs in your own words:

#1. The President and his administration are violating the constitution.

#2. The Supreme Court of the United States validates this illegality.

#3. Rikzilla, along with the overwhelming majority of the American people agree with these violations of law.

These seem to be your 3 main points of logic. Lets take them one at a time shall we? You are accusing the President of the United States with nothing less than violating his oath of office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That is a very large accusation, do you have evidence for this? If you do then I'd advise you to write your congressional representatives, because they need to know this stuff. If GWB is in violation of his oath of office, then he should be impeached. I guess the only reason that congress is not drawing up articles of impeachment at this time is because of the "vast right wing conspiracy"?? (just trying to help you our a little there bub,..you need it) You have made what is called in skeptical circles "an extraordinary claim" as such it will require a coresponding amount of "extraordinary evidence".

Point #2: The SCOTUS is not only complicent in this Presidential malfeasence, but has actually upheld it. This is of course absurd, and is also an extraordinary claim. I will even go so far as to say that anyone stupid enough to "believe" this nonsense is a political woo-woo. Prove me wrong....

Point #3: The majority of Americans agree with the POTUS's alleged violation of his oath of office. I believe you mean that the majority of Americans agree with GWB's prosecution of the WOT. If that's what you mean, you would be correct. But that is not what you said. Therefore, you are wrong again.

Your arguments are hereby shredded. Your logic is flawed by your angry emotions. You need to calm down and look at your own posts with a critical eye before you click the "submit reply" button. Look at "Suddenly's" posts, he could give you a clinic in the proper way to defend and promote the liberal position logically. You, my friend, are a basket case.

-z

rikzilla

14th January 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by shemp

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

Would you care to point me to an official Declaration of War by Congress, or to a constitutional amendment giving the President power to declare war? I do not believe that a statement by the President that we are at war is considered constitutionally sufficient.

Here is the entire text of The US Constitution, Article 8:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Now Shemp, I point out to you the paragraph at the end of section 8 that I bolded for your reading ease, since you somehow missed it in your earlier post.

Keeping that in mind, I now direct you to the War Powers Act of 1973:
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

So Shemp, there are 3 specific ways in which a President may prosecute a war. Congressional declaration is only one of them, and if it was the only way to ever commit our soldiers to battle then there would have been no need for this act in the first place, would there? :rolleyes:

There was a congressional vote authorizing the President to:
"use all necessary and appropriate force"
...to strike against individuals or nations that "planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks."
---Sept 14, 2001.

Then in October of 2002, there was this:
10 October 2002

House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
House of Representatives approves resolution October 10

Following is the text of House Joint Resolution 114, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," approved in the House of Representatives October 10, by a vote of 296 to 133:

This was specifically done to satisfy the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973. Now, please explain to all of us Shemp, how this constitutes a violation of the US Constitution??

(crickets chirp)

-z

shemp

14th January 2004, 07:37 AM

The crickets are not chirping.

Let's look at this again:

PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

I do not dispute the right of the president to use armed forces; I do dispute his judgment. But, his use of armed forces is NOT AN OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF WAR. It comes under Sec. 2 (c) part (3) above. It is a national emergency, it is not an official war.

Now that your unimportant diversion has been addressed, let's return to the real point of this thread, which you spend your time artfully dodging: Do American citizens have a right to protection under Amendment VI of the US Constitution, or can the government legally deny them this?

How long will the crickets chirp until we get an answer?

rikzilla

14th January 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by shemp
The crickets are not chirping.

Let's look at this again:

I do not dispute the right of the president to use armed forces; I do dispute his judgment. But, his use of armed forces is NOT AN OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF WAR. It comes under Sec. 2 (c) part (3) above. It is a national emergency, it is not an official war.

Now that your unimportant diversion has been addressed, let's return to the real point of this thread, which you spend your time artfully dodging: Do American citizens have a right to protection under Amendment VI of the US Constitution, or can the government legally deny them this?

How long will the crickets chirp until we get an answer?

I direct all denizens of this forum to the above naked attempt at goal-post shifting.

Here's the original Shemp-post I was responding to:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rikzilla

After the war is over I'm sure we'll give Jose Padilla, et al a nice monument like the one in DC comemorating the Japanese internment camps of WWII. Injustice happens...if it's preventable, it should be prevented. In wartime though it's a hard call to make between preserving national security and preventing injustice. If there were no 9/11,...no war,....then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But Padilla was not jailed in a vacuum....one must consider the context in which he was detained. Just as one must remember that the US did not lock up the Japanese merely because they were different...were it not for WWII there would have been no detention. We all can look backward and tell with certainty that the Japanese detentions were wrong....but in the post Pearl Harbour climate I bet most folks thought it was a real good idea.

-z
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The Congress shall have Power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you care to point me to an official Declaration of War by Congress, or to a constitutional amendment giving the President power to declare war? I do not believe that a statement by the President that we are at war is considered constitutionally sufficient.

In it he obviously infers that a declaration of war is the only justification for sending troops into battle. My post merely corrected his obvious misconception. Now he wishes to bring up another post of his which was:
I guess when it comes to our citizens, we may as well throw this out the window:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apples and oranges Shemp. Nice try but terribly transparent. You should read my earlier post which immediatly preceeded the one you feebly attempted to respond to. As far as Ammendment VI goes you are right.....as long as we are talking about "criminal prosecutions" ....sadly for you, we are not.

-z

Q: "How long will the crickets chirp until we get an answer?"
A: "24 mins"

Back in your court doofus. Clocks ticking.

rikzilla

14th January 2004, 08:31 AM

It boils down to you Shemp, saying this:
Would you care to point me to an official Declaration of War by Congress, or to a constitutional amendment giving the President power to declare war? I do not believe that a statement by the President that we are at war is considered constitutionally sufficient.

I then pointed out the specific portions of the War Powers Act of 1973 which DO prove constitutionally sufficient. I never once said that I believed that a "statement by the president that we are at war" was sufficient to comit US forces. Beat that strawman some more, but don't pretend he's me.

You then said:

I do not dispute the right of the president to use armed forces; I do dispute his judgment. But, his use of armed forces is NOT AN OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF WAR. It comes under Sec. 2 (c) part (3) above. It is a national emergency, it is not an official war.
...a blatent example of intellectual dishonesty. You indeed did infer in your post that the president had no right to deploy US forces in absence of a congressional declaration of war. Why else would you ask me to point you to a congressional declaration of war??

The only possible reason to even bring that to anyone's attention in this debate is to attempt to show that this was an unconstitutional use of force by Mr. Bush's admin. Therefore you DO "dispute the right of the president to use armed force" in the instance of Iraq/Afghanistan/WOT.

If not, then tell me how I misinterpreted your meaning?

-z

Luke T.

14th January 2004, 08:38 AM

I think we should lock rikzilla and shemp up in a cage in Guantanamo in coveralls and blacked out goggles and ear muffs with no internet access until such time as they stop insulting each other. If that takes forever, I don't care.

rikzilla

14th January 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
I think we should lock rikzilla and shemp up in a cage in Guantanamo in coveralls and blacked out goggles and ear muffs with no internet access until such time as they stop insulting each other. If that takes forever, I don't care.

How very neutral of you Luke. :D

Now I see why you guys are called "moderators".

If it would please the court I will henceforth stop referring to Shemp as the $hithouse lawyer, doofus, etc....

Of course I doubt he will wish to "wimp out" in this fashion. See, he's a man. a big man. :D Puts me in mind of that ole Dan'l Boone song. :big:

-z

epepke

14th January 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by shemp
I do not dispute the right of the president to use armed forces; I do dispute his judgment. But, his use of armed forces is NOT AN OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF WAR. It comes under Sec. 2 (c) part (3) above. It is a national emergency, it is not an official war.

Strictly speaking, this is true. It is not an official war. This does not change an interpretation of Amendment V, as it says "in time of War or public danger" (emphasis mine). A national emergency counts as time of public danger and therefore time of War or public danger.

Also strictly speaking, Amendment VI does not clearly apply to any action outside the US. It says "jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." This is usually interpreted to include possessions and territories, but not foreign soil. Nothing in the Constitution supports the idea that a citizen is subject to the laws of the United States when on foreign soil; in fact, that was a particular thing that the US was trying to get away from, so abused had this been in Europe.
Nor is it clear in e.g. the Padilla case that this is a criminal prosecution. It's hard to justify saying that when someone hasn't even been charged, a criminal prosecution even exists.

While I personally favor Padilla's being granted rights under Amendment VI, it seems to me that it clearly would go way beyond even a fairly liberal constructionist reading of Amendment VI.

rikzilla

14th January 2004, 12:58 PM

Crickets still chirping Shemp. Come on back here and prove that you're a big man like you say you are. A big man would admit when he's wrong.

I'm not too impressed. You are not as big as you think you are. That's in stature Shemp, not size.

See ya tomorrow, (if you have the stomach for it that is),
Little Big Man.
-z

The Fool

14th January 2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
Crickets still chirping Shemp. Come on back here and prove that you're a big man like you say you are. A big man would admit when he's wrong.

I'm not too impressed. You are not as big as you think you are. That's in stature Shemp, not size.

See ya tomorrow, (if you have the stomach for it that is),
Little Big Man.
-z
Channeling Jedi Knight again rik, or do you lend him your ID from time to time? Your latest efforts have a familiar ring to them.

I know it is painful for you to have your argument used to wipe the floor but Shemp is indeed a cruel man...I doubt if he is going to let you go till you tap out. Until then, fat jokes should be enough to keep your argument ticking over.

But as I said before, You may be next Rik and when the secret police carry you off I'm sure even Shemp will argue for your release from the fascist system you are so keen to have in place...

rikzilla

15th January 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Channeling Jedi Knight again rik, or do you lend him your ID from time to time? Your latest efforts have a familiar ring to them.

Naked attempt at demonization. -strike 1

I know it is painful for you to have your argument used to wipe the floor but Shemp is indeed a cruel man...I doubt if he is going to let you go till you tap out. Until then, fat jokes should be enough to keep your argument ticking over.

After Shemp clearly lost his argument on points of logic, your attempt to characterize his loss as not only a win but a "he wiped the floor with you" win is spurrious to say the least. Baghdad Bob would be proud of you. -strike 2

But as I said before, You may be next Rik and when the secret police carry you off I'm sure even Shemp will argue for your release from the fascist system you are so keen to have in place...

Vague stab at the slippery slope. Reminds me of when a fundie told me that I'd be sorry after the rapture when I found myself alone on a planet full of sinners in agony. Even for you Fool, that is pretty lame. Let's just say I'll take my chances, no need for you or Shemp to do me any favors man. -strike 3

Yerrrrr OUT!

Next please.
-z

PS: Shemp, clock is still ticking...crickets STILL chirping.

ceptimus

15th January 2004, 07:12 AM

rikzilla,

If you are unable to discern that you are losing an argument, or refuse to acknowledge that you are losing, even when you know you are, it's rather a bore.

rikzilla

15th January 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus
rikzilla,

If you are unable to discern that you are losing an argument, or refuse to acknowledge that you are losing, even when you know you are, it's rather a bore.

Instead of making the announcement ala Baghdad Bob take a look at the tanks outside your window.

Instead of just saying so, please cut and paste the argument points that Shemp so soundly defeated me on.

Go ahead, I dare you.

-z

Oh, BTW; cool avatar.

rikzilla

15th January 2004, 07:39 AM

Okay, Ceptimus has done a Shemp and run away.

Let's open the floor;

I hereby invite anyone present on this forum to parse my argument with Shemp and explain to me WHY they think I either won or lost. This challenge is open to anyone who sees it.

Shemp, Fool, and Ceptimus have given the "Baghdad Bob" defense. That is, declare victory then run away...rinse and repeat.

I'm tired of hearing Crickets chirp, and idiots blather. This is a skeptical site, I thought we were into informed opinions??

-z

Troll

15th January 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
Okay, Ceptimus has done a Shemp and run away.

Let's open the floor;

Shemp, Fool, and Ceptimus have given the "Baghdad Bob" defense. That is, declare victory then run away...rinse and repeat.

I'm tired of hearing Crickets chirp, and idiots blather. This is a skeptical site, I thought we were into informed opinions??

-z

Only when they inform us of their opinions.:D

Mr Manifesto

15th January 2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Tony
Anyone who supports gun control, federal welfare, federally funded public schools, the EPA, the IRS, federal drug laws, compulsory voting and any other unconstitutional institution has zero credibility to speak on this issue in terms of constitutionality. If you are willing to stomp on the constitution in one respect, it's disingenuous to complain when someone does it in another respect.

Suddenly should start a thread entitled, "USA Constitution FAQ".

rikzilla

15th January 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
I hereby invite anyone present on this forum to parse my argument with Shemp and explain to me WHY they think I either won or lost. This challenge is open to anyone who sees it.

Suddenly

15th January 2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Suddenly should start a thread entitled, "USA Constitution FAQ".

This post pretty much sums it up:

Trouble is that some people have a goofy idea of what a constitutional right is. They seem to believe that if they really believe the constitution stands for something, that is the end of the inquiry, and all laws to the contrary must be the evil product of constitution hating scum...

Opinions aren't enforceable, absent a specific grant of the judicial power. A good thing if you don't dig utter chaos.

I'm all for protecting and using rights, but people that get strident over their "imagined" rights give me a headache.

My favorite: "But they didn't read me my rights!!"

Somehow there are those that think this is a get out of jail free card. It usually takes at least an hour of calm discussion before I can get them to at least consider that Miranda isn't quite so general, no matter what they saw on that TV show...

shuize

15th January 2004, 07:20 PM

I've seen this over and over myself.

"The police didn't read me my rights!"

"Did they ask you any questions?"

"No ... But they didn't read me my rights!"

"Did you make any statements?"

"No ... But they didn't read me my rights!"

And so on ....

peptoabysmal

15th January 2004, 10:39 PM

Let's play Devil's advocate and assume that the Bush administration is evil and is engaging in illegal and despotic activities. This being an election year with the Democrats tripping all over themselves to usurp Bush, why haven't the Democrats launched a Senate investigation into these allegations?

I heard Ted Kennedy on the news the other day ranting on and on about how Bush lied about WMD and this is an illegal war in Iraq and homeland security is violating the rights of Americans. Well, Teddy, how about backing it up with some action? Is it going to be like affirmative action, just a bunch of promises and no action, a ruse to get the minority vote while you dine on caviar and champagne? It's because, Ted, you don't have a case and you know it. Innuendo is politically effective when you don't have facts.

shemp

16th January 2004, 04:32 AM

Unlike rikzilla, some of us have employment that requires us to do more than sit at a desk and make sure nobody pushes the little red button, and some of us have more family than just "Rover." Besides, there is no further point in arguing with an idiot, so I won't.

a_unique_person

16th January 2004, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

This post pretty much sums it up:

I have had this argument here before. The constitution is a piece of paper written up by long dead men. They can only have so much power over us now. It is up to the people who are alive today to ensure that what they think is important stays that way. If they don't, it doesn't exist.

rikzilla

16th January 2004, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Innuendo is politically effective when you don't have facts.

So true. It even works for JREF posters who are so blinded by their own biases they are incapable of facing facts. Even when someone tenaciously rubs their face in it. :D

Witness the incomperable power of the blindness that is caused by confirmation bias:
Originally posted by Shemp:
Unlike rikzilla, some of us have employment that requires us to do more than sit at a desk and make sure nobody pushes the little red button, and some of us have more family than just "Rover." Besides, there is no further point in arguing with an idiot, so I won't.

I'm not making this stuff up people. This is Shemp, this is who he really is. I don't need to flame him. I don't need to flame ccreationists either. I just pity them their ignorance.

-z

a_unique_person

16th January 2004, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

So true. It even works for JREF posters who are so blinded by their own biases they are incapable of facing facts. Even when someone tenaciously rubs their face in it. :D

Witness the incomperable power of the blindness that is caused by confirmation bias:

I'm not making this stuff up people. This is Shemp, this is who he really is. I don't need to flame him. I don't need to flame ccreationists either. I just pity them their ignorance.

-z

Rik, Shemp makes more sense poking you in the eyes with two fingers than you can ever make.

It is your ignorance that is most apparent to me. You will forgive the conservative government any fault, which is your greatest crime. I am a natural lefty, but I can see the faults in the leftist position on many issues. You can see nothing wrong with someone as obviously brain dead as fundamentalist GWB. This is a guy who is looking forward to being pulled up in the sky to a paradise every bit as ethereal as that promised to Muslim warriors. He really does believe this. And you, an atheist, can tolerate it. I can tolerate Muslims who have come to an arrangement with reality that is humane, but cannot tolerate those such as the cleric in Cleopatra's thread about the Mullah who writes tips about how to hide bruising when you beat your wife. The ***** that GWB is speaking is every bit as offensive. He is already dragging Australia into an absurd missile defense system when all our most recent threats have nothing to do with missiles from outer space.

rikzilla

16th January 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Let's play Devil's advocate and assume that the Bush administration is evil and is engaging in illegal and despotic activities. This being an election year with the Democrats tripping all over themselves to usurp Bush, why haven't the Democrats launched a Senate investigation into these allegations?

I heard Ted Kennedy on the news the other day ranting on and on about how Bush lied about WMD and this is an illegal war in Iraq and homeland security is violating the rights of Americans. Well, Teddy, how about backing it up with some action? Is it going to be like affirmative action, just a bunch of promises and no action, a ruse to get the minority vote while you dine on caviar and champagne? It's because, Ted, you don't have a case and you know it. Innuendo is politically effective when you don't have facts.

Ted Kennedy, a man not recommended to participate in anyone's carpool. A former presidential front-runner who had his wonderful career hopes thwarted by the lone delegate from a small place called Chappaquidick. Willie Smith's drinking buddy and body snatcher from "Au Bar" in Palm Beach. In short, a man of unimpeachable character to those on the left.

He makes some of the same assertions as did Shemp, I see. Let's review Shemp's assertions for one mercifully brief moment:
#1. The President and his administration are violating the constitution.

#2. The Supreme Court of the United States validates this illegality.

#3. Rikzilla, along with the overwhelming majority of the American people agree with these violations of law.

...along with my reply which got me into Shemp's bad book:
These seem to be your 3 main points of logic. Lets take them one at a time shall we? You are accusing the President of the United States with nothing less than violating his oath of office.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a very large accusation, do you have evidence for this? If you do then I'd advise you to write your congressional representatives, because they need to know this stuff. If GWB is in violation of his oath of office, then he should be impeached. I guess the only reason that congress is not drawing up articles of impeachment at this time is because of the "vast right wing conspiracy"?? (just trying to help you our a little there bub,..you need it) You have made what is called in skeptical circles "an extraordinary claim" as such it will require a coresponding amount of "extraordinary evidence".

Point #2: The SCOTUS is not only complicent in this Presidential malfeasence, but has actually upheld it. This is of course absurd, and is also an extraordinary claim. I will even go so far as to say that anyone stupid enough to "believe" this nonsense is a political woo-woo. Prove me wrong....

Point #3: The majority of Americans agree with the POTUS's alleged violation of his oath of office. I believe you mean that the majority of Americans agree with GWB's prosecution of the WOT. If that's what you mean, you would be correct. But that is not what you said. Therefore, you are wrong again.

I ask Shemp again to respond with something more substantial than "IDIOT"!!! I challenge him to either show me how I've gotten it wrong, or to show us all that he is a man and own up to the simple and forgiveable fact that he was mistaken.

-z

rikzilla

16th January 2004, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Rik, Shemp makes more sense poking you in the eyes with two fingers than you can ever make.

Is that the considered, rational, logical opinion of a skeptic? I thought violence was the natural domain of the warmongering righty?? :confused:

It is your ignorance that is most apparent to me.
Okay then, we're getting somewhere. Please enlighten me as to what it was about my reply to Shemp's assertions that were in error. I am not too high and mighty to admit my mistakes and learn....even from you.

You will forgive the conservative government any fault, which is your greatest crime.

Do you have evidence of this? I am not only a member of, but a shop steward in a Teamster local. I was anti-NAFTA under Clinton, I am anti-NAFTA under Bush. You have now made your second gross and unsupported assumption.

I am a natural lefty, but I can see the faults in the leftist position on many issues.

Hey, we now have something in common....I can see lots of faults in the leftist position too. :rolleyes:

You can see nothing wrong with someone as obviously brain dead as fundamentalist GWB. This is a guy who is looking forward to being pulled up in the sky to a paradise every bit as ethereal as that promised to Muslim warriors. He really does believe this. And you, an atheist, can tolerate it.
Gross assumption #3. While I may partially agree about GWB's strange theology I must ask you what viable choice as an American I have. All candidates profess a closeness to God. Besides, I'm not an atheist. I'm a heretic. :D Actually I'm a disillusioned ex-christian who dabbles in Zen Buddist and Taoist philosophy. Hardly an atheist.

I can tolerate Muslims who have come to an arrangement with reality that is humane, but cannot tolerate those such as the cleric in Cleopatra's thread about the Mullah who writes tips about how to hide bruising when you beat your wife. The ***** that GWB is speaking is every bit as offensive.

How so? How, in your opinion has GWB ever said anything as reprehensible as that? If he did, I'd dare say he'd be unelectable.
He is already dragging Australia into an absurd missile defense system when all our most recent threats have nothing to do with missiles from outer space.

Well, talking your nation into protecting it's citizens (even if from some imaginary threat) seems to me to be less reprehensible than condoning spousal abuse. But that's just me. You have your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I don't suppose it matters to you that your opinions are not grounded in facts. No wonder you're a Shemp supporter. :rolleyes:

-z

rikzilla

19th January 2004, 01:39 PM

Crickets chirp ever louder.

Shemp and AUP, as usual, swoop in and smear the dung of innuendo and libel upon the walls of the JREF forum. Why not just post facts? Why not support your assertion that GWB is "shredding the Constitution" with actual facts??

I say that you won't, because you can't. If there were facts showing that GWB's actions were unconstitutional old Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy would have been doing more than calling GWB names in front of C-SPAN cameras in an empty Senate chamber.

No. They'd be busily impeaching him, and not from a bogus lefty website, or a fear-mongering commercial, but from the House and Senate itself.

It'll be interesting if the democratic candidates make similar assertions as Shemp stupidly did. They won't be able to Baghdad Bob their way out of it. No, they'll have one real issue to hound GWB with, the lack of WMD in Iraq. But in order to push that issue they'll have to make the assertion that Saddam was not a threat. I doubt that anyone besides the self convinced lefty will ever buy that. Saddam had a track record, no less than Osama does now. Even a blind man could see the truth of that.

Personally I am so looking forward to the debates after the dems come up with a contender. It'll be like a lamb to the slaughter. Maybe that's why Hillary is biding her time? ;)

-z

19th January 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
Why not support your assertion that GWB is "shredding the Constitution" with actual facts??

We've been over the situation with the Secret Service silencing visible political speech that disagrees with the president already.

We've seen GWB appoint a judge whose credentials are really not very good at all, directly over congress's "dead body'.

We saw his administration's reaction to the "Pledge" decision, and how his admistration is grandstanding to prevent the righting of that wrong.

We've seen how the "Patriot Act" and its successors are really being used, in complete violation of the constitution.

If that isn't enough, you aren't looking, Rik.

Jim Lennox

19th January 2004, 05:11 PM

Worldwide, the experiment is becoming the norm. It has been estimated that at least 15,000 people are being held without trial under the justification of the "war on terrorism". They include more than 3,000 detained in Iraq after the war, of whom at least 1,000 are still in detention; an estimated further 1,000 to 3,000 detained at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan; and an unknown number being held on the British territory of Diego Garcia.

And..

From China, which has imprisoned up to 100 Chinese Muslims without trial, to Uzbekistan (up to 1,000), Yemen (200), Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, India and Indonesia, this alarming lead is being eagerly followed. In Israel and Chechnya, there would be far more people in prison without trial had not the authorities there taken matters one step further and authorised extra-judicial killings.

From here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1119994,00.html)

This is what is most disturbing to me. Now that the US has got away with it, everyone will want to have a go.

rikzilla

20th January 2004, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by jj

We've been over the situation with the Secret Service silencing visible political speech that disagrees with the president already.

Is it too much to ask for a source, a link, anything?? I've had about enough unsupported assertions to last me a lifetime!

We've seen GWB appoint a judge whose credentials are really not very good at all, directly over congress's "dead body'.
Which judge? At least give me a name so I can check your "facts" for you.

We saw his administration's reaction to the "Pledge" decision, and how his admistration is grandstanding to prevent the righting of that wrong.
So what? Are you really going to sit there and try to tell me that the "pledge" support in congress is partisan?? Wasn't that Hillary Clinton I saw standing with the entire Congress on the steps of the Capitol reciting the pledge?? If you think something that over 90% of the American people profess to agree on could be defined so narrowly as a Bush admin agenda then you are woefully ignorant.

We've seen how the "Patriot Act" and its successors are really being used, in complete violation of the constitution.
Yes? Ok, there have been a few detentions I agree. However, there is only one (Padilla) that has constitutional implications. There is no "complete" violation of the constitution. Period. If so then please give links. To credible sources

If that isn't enough, you aren't looking, Rik.

Apparently neither are you, or you are seeing stuff that isn't really there. So I challenge you, list the abuses of the Patriot Act. We'll then go over the text of this act and the text of the Constitution and see what is real and what is not. Would that meet your approval??

-z

rikzilla

20th January 2004, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Jim Lennox

And..

From here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1119994,00.html)

This is what is most disturbing to me. Now that the US has got away with it, everyone will want to have a go.

My heart bleeds for you, and the world. However, if you cannot find real concrete illegality to concentrate on, then there is no issue is there? Oh you can moan and say that this or that should be illegal...if you go on about it and work within the system maybe you could get your representatives to argue for changes to the law? Until that happens there is no legal issue. Is there?

So march in the streets, write strongly worded letters, vote. But don't try and characterise the Bush admin as Constitution shreding fascist fanatics....for that you need to show that laws have been broken. You know, facts.

Being a skeptic and liberal is quite a burden ain't it?

-z
:D

shemp

20th January 2004, 07:13 AM

HELP ME! I can't stop posting as my sockpuppet "rikzilla"! I keep launching insane attacks on myself. SOMEBODY HELP ME!

rikzilla

20th January 2004, 11:45 AM

3,670 posts and counting..... and all not much more coherrent than the above. :hit:

I only hope you won't be operating any motor vehicles, or near any sharp objects until your meds kick in.

:v:
-z

20th January 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Is it too much to ask for a source, a link, anything?? I've had about enough unsupported assertions to last me a lifetime!

I bumped the thread with the source a few minutes after I replied to you. I dunno if it's dropped off the page or not, but there was a multipage discussion on it right here.

Which judge? At least give me a name so I can check your "facts" for you.

Are you really this unaware? Bush temporarily appointed the guy that congress has been stalling (bipartisanly) for a year now.

So what? Are you really going to sit there and try to tell me that the "pledge" support in congress is partisan??

Get off your partisan horse, and put your feet on the ground. The "god" stuff in the pledge is, was, and will always be wrong in this country. Bush criticized the judges who made it. When he did that, he showed a basic contempt for the constitution. That's not partisan, that's Bush.

Yes? Ok, there have been a few detentions I agree. However, there is only one (Padilla) that has constitutional implications. There is no "complete" violation of the constitution. Period. If so then please give links. To credible sources

One such crime is exactly a complete breach of the constitution. You've made my case for me. I don't have to show any more.

Thank you for both showing your basic unawareness of the actions of the administration as well.