Bush - the worst president ever

[Solve et Coagula]

Bush - the worst president ever

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=176814

[veerar]

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=176814
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0913-01.htm

By the inconsistencies and lies,in his policies,he may be the worst ever.

[Amerikanisch]

No not the worst EVER. If you think that, you are probably not old enough to remember Jimmy Carter who was a consummate patsy and wimp. Either that or you are a koolaid drinking Dem. I'll take Bush over Carter anyday.
But do I think Bush is a good president? No, I don't, but there's worse around.

[veerar]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0914-22.htm
Latest complaints against Mr Bush's treatment of his troops,in Iraq

[von-Scharnhorst]

Latest complaints against Mr Bush's treatment of his troops,in Iraq
These boards are for discussion and views on politics. We have google for endless links.

ARE you ever actualy going to SAY anything? HAVE you any thing to say?

[Calvin X]

These boards are for discussion and views on politics. We have google for endless links.

ARE you ever actualy going to SAY anything? HAVE you any thing to say?

Maybe he has run out of ways to say " America is bad". :rolleyes:

[von-Scharnhorst]

All I have ever seen is links from him. I can not find, any where, where he has actualy given an OPINION on any thing.

We all start threads which are a piece from a news site, or news paper, but we go on to discuss it. All you get from Veera are more links.

I do not think he has any opinions.

Saying that. I have just this second found one. :o

[claire]

It's better to just say it, I don't have enough time to read a one thousand page report on the evils or George Bush! (although I do find bits of these articles on here interesting)

[Dorian Corso]

Okay then, I'll just say it , I find you kind of interesting. ;)

[Dorian Corso]

I’ve received a private message from Calvin X that would seem to insinuate I’m some sort of cyber sexual predator. I assume over the comment I made above . The depravity of these people never ceases to amaze. They perch themselves on a moral high-horse claiming to be the party of Jayzus and point the finger of self-righteous hypocrisy at all who disagree. Anyone paying attention to current developments in American politics would probably understand why.

They were the party who promised to bring morals and ethics back to politics and it is inarguable at this point, they have done anything but. Their base of supporters so blinded by pride, they cannot admit their mistakes and never will but instead attempt to blur the waters with moral relativism “ But…but…Clinton and Monica…” and other such apples to oranges comparisons. “ But …but… Gary Studds in 1983...”

Perhaps I’m naïve, but when I say I’m interested in someone it is not a declaration of sexual interest. As I’m sure my wife of twelve years and my two children would agree. I’m also interested in electric cars. Perhaps I should spend five paragraphs qualifying that statement so it is understood that electric cars don’t physically arouse me ?

I understand it is bad etiquette to bring private messages into the public forum and it is not my intention to derail the topic at hand. I do find it very interesting when young people in America take a vested interest in their country. So rare, these days, when most young folks and adults alike are far more interested in the result of American Idol , than the results of American politics. When my children are old enough , I will encourage them to question the arguments of both sides and to learn to draw their own conclusions about leadership. Truly, if there is any hope left for this country, they are it.

I suppose every comment I make here , from now on will have to be longwinded and overqualified so as not to leave the wrong impression to those whose supposedly pious dispositions, can't constantly draw the wrong conclusions. And if my comment was misunderstood by anyone else , most especially Ms. Claire, then I do apologize.

D.C.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Any complaints as to this nature should be addressed through the moderators.

P.M's are just that PRIVATE. But if you feel that you are being harrassed, then again, contact the moderators.

I do not wish to hear any more of this subject on open boards.

Please return to the thread discussion.

[claire]

I doubt that the next president in office will be recognized as a good president either. I think America is going to face some hard times in the future reguardless of our president. George has put us in a tight spot.

[von-Scharnhorst]

He (she?:D) has a hel of a mess to clear up. It is something that may take more than a couple of administrations, to sort out.

[janahitwadi]

I doubt that the next president in office will be recognized as a good president either. I think America is going to face some hard times in the future reguardless of our president. George has put us in a tight spot.
Would import solve the problem?

[von-Scharnhorst]

They tried that once before. Look at the mess George Washington made of it.

[janahitwadi]

Import of person from outside is not practicable. however, advise from others can be helpful. Look at the prosperity of silicon valley.

[claire]

import??? what does that mean?

[janahitwadi]

import??? what does that mean?
Get advise from outside the country.

[zoobee2]

actually, to import something means to bring something in. You can import goods, services, people, whatever.

export means to bring something out.

[janahitwadi]

actually, to import something means to bring something in. You can import goods, services, people, whatever. export means to bring something out.
In silicon valley USA imported persons. Rightly her constitution doesn't allow import of 'President' but can import advise. Advise is an intellectual property.

[Spades]

I do not think Bush is the Worst President ever, hes got a lot of bad rep from the media because people believe to much of what they hear from the media.
People also are so concerned with making themselves look better that they will say stupid things that people will want to hear knowing that most of these people will not think things through. Bush on the other hand does what he believes works and if you think hes evil then you are a fool.

What could he possibly gain from what hes been doing so far?

[claire]

I know what import, like importing goods mean. I just didn't know it was used in politics in such a way.

[Bart Fishermans]

I do not think Bush is the Worst President ever, Could you name me one that worse?
What could he possibly gain from what hes been doing so far?Absolutely nothing except for the destruction of the world.

[Spades]

Jimmy Carter is the poster Child for terrible presidents, there is not one thing that hes done that hasnt messed us

[von-Scharnhorst]

there is not one thing that hes done that hasnt messed us
He did not kill a couple of thousand soldiers over an imagined weapon arsenal to do it though, did he?

[janahitwadi]

I know what import, like importing goods mean. I just didn't know it was used in politics in such a way.
There is nothing impossible in Politics. Those who have higher strength always export their wish. This is opposite of that.

[claire]

He did not kill a couple of thousand soldiers over an imagined weapon arsenal to do it though, did he?

"We know you have the weapon! We sold them to you!"

[pplrblind]

I do not think Bush is the Worst President ever, hes got a lot of bad rep from the media because people believe to much of what they hear from the media.
People also are so concerned with making themselves look better that they will say stupid things that people will want to hear knowing that most of these people will not think things through. Bush on the other hand does what he believes works and if you think hes evil then you are a fool.

What could he possibly gain from what hes been doing so far?

Bush is worse than Jimmy Carter (I agree not a great president) becuase of Bushs blaitant disregard for human rights and international law. Look at gitmo, people are being held for years without trial or ever seeing a lawyer, many allegations of torture, he refuses to let human rights groups have access.
He has stripped many rights from his own people in a similar way to that which Hitler did in pre-war Germany. (not saying Bush is Hitler)

PS Im shocked Von, "an imagined weapon arsenal"

[Spades]

Bush is worse than Jimmy Carter (I agree not a great president) becuase of Bushs blaitant disregard for human rights and international law. Look at gitmo, people are being held for years without trial or ever seeing a lawyer, many allegations of torture, he refuses to let human rights groups have access.
He has stripped many rights from his own people in a similar way to that which Hitler did in pre-war Germany. (not saying Bush is Hitler)

PS Im shocked Von, "an imagined weapon arsenal"

He openly condems torture, and as for being held for years without trial, (no other underlying reason or mishaped facts by you and/or the media) then how do you know that bush is the one holding him with by specific request? As for human rights groups, why should they most of them have access, they are human so therefore they are biased. He has stripped no one of their rights. I cannot believe you think jimmy carter is better than bush.

[von-Scharnhorst]

He has stripped no one of their rights.
WHAT??

Keeping people in prison for years without even a trial is "not stripping people of their rights"?

I suppose you think no onje was stripped of their rights att Auschwitz as well?

[pplrblind]

He openly condems torture, and as for being held for years without trial, (no other underlying reason or mishaped facts by you and/or the media) then how do you know that bush is the one holding him with by specific request? As for human rights groups, why should they most of them have access, they are human so therefore they are biased. He has stripped no one of their rights. I cannot believe you think jimmy carter is better than bush.

Amnesty International, Biased?
Why should they be let in? To make sure that there are no violations of human rights which there obviously is.
People are being held without trial for years in an American run prison, Bush is the commander and chief so he is the one holding them.
As for stripped of their rights look at your patriot acts, many similarities to the enabling act.

[Spades]

Amnesty International, Biased?
Why should they be let in? To make sure that there are no violations of human rights which there obviously is.
People are being held without trial for years in an American run prison, Bush is the commander and chief so he is the one holding them.
As for stripped of their rights look at your patriot acts, many similarities to the enabling act.

Until a direct link is established that bush orderd someone to be detained with no good reason then i will hold him as the sole person to blame for every little nasty that goes on in the world.
If someone is a terroist or wishes to cause harm upon someone else than they give up their right to a lot of human rights. Otherwise we could not have jails and prisons or a justice system. Terrorism is a criminal act and therefore they lose most if not all claims to human rights. Freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness. You cannot detain a criminal and not be infringing on his human rights in some way.

[Crowly]

No, Spades, what you're not getting here is the concept of 'due process.'

You can't just say 'we reckon you're a terrorist so we're going to strip you of human rights and hold you till we say otherwise' because they might not be a terrorist, that's the whole point of those courts, jury's, trials you may have seen on TV.

The inmates of Guantanemo, whilst I am sure that 90% of them are guilty as hell, still deserve the due process that is sacrosanct in ALL human's rights. What about the 1 innocent man in there (hypothetical) who's been without contact with his family, friends, legal counsel, for over 3 years. What are you gonna do, apologise when you let him go?

His life has been ruined, and not even ruined in a legal mistake way, it's been ruined in a foreign government has kidnapped me and thrown me in some cuban concentration camp sort of way.

[pplrblind]

Until a direct link is established that bush orderd someone to be detained with no good reason then i will hold him as the sole person to blame for every little nasty that goes on in the world.
If someone is a terroist or wishes to cause harm upon someone else than they give up their right to a lot of human rights. Otherwise we could not have jails and prisons or a justice system. Terrorism is a criminal act and therefore they lose most if not all claims to human rights. Freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness. You cannot detain a criminal and not be infringing on his human rights in some way.

Everyone is entitled to human rights. Nobody is allowed to be tortured, NOBODY, whether they are a re terrorist or not. There are rules in this world and Bush must obide by them.

[Spades]

Everyone is entitled to human rights. Nobody is allowed to be tortured, NOBODY, whether they are a re terrorist or not. There are rules in this world and Bush must obide by them.

I never said anyone SHOULD be tortured i am only saying that freedom has to be taken away from anyone that commits a crime. I didnt say anything about skipping due process or picking someone out and detaining them because i think they are a terrorist. If somehow you guys thought it was implied than im sorry but thats not at all what i meant. I meant that as terroist found in a war zone, committing acts of terroism or at least aiding terroist the only true way to determine who is innocent or not is by if they knew that they wbere committing these acts. Because they were caught for something its not just a random thing, and as prisoners of war we can detain them until the war is over. That is the Due process of it. I will not say whether i like it or not because in some ways it sucks but thats what happens to POW's.
As for that one innocent man, he had to be in a War Zone, doing something he should not have been to get caught and it sucks but he became a pow, but he still had to be doing something that got him caught in the first place. It has to be extreme unlikely conditions for that truly innocent man to be in a WAR ZONE commiting some act that he didnt know was aiding terroism. Even though i do not believe ignorance is an excuse in most matters like these.

[pplrblind]

I never said anyone SHOULD be tortured i am only saying that freedom has to be taken away from anyone that commits a crime. I didnt say anything about skipping due process or picking someone out and detaining them because i think they are a terrorist. If somehow you guys thought it was implied than im sorry but thats not at all what i meant. I meant that as terroist found in a war zone, committing acts of terroism or at least aiding terroist the only true way to determine who is innocent or not is by if they knew that they wbere committing these acts. Because they were caught for something its not just a random thing, and as prisoners of war we can detain them until the war is over. That is the Due process of it. I will not say whether i like it or not because in some ways it sucks but thats what happens to POW's.
As for that one innocent man, he had to be in a War Zone, doing something he should not have been to get caught and it sucks but he became a pow, but he still had to be doing something that got him caught in the first place. It has to be extreme unlikely conditions for that truly innocent man to be in a WAR ZONE commiting some act that he didnt know was aiding terroism. Even though i do not believe ignorance is an excuse in most matters like these.

They live in a war zone. Pakistani authorities gave the states hundreds of prisoners, many just taliban fighters not terrorists. Many were bought from bounty hunters in Afghanistan who captured members of rival clans. These people have been detained for 5 years, habeas corpus is fundamental to western society and these people should be given the right to challenge the legality of their detention.

[Spades]

They live in a war zone. Pakistani authorities gave the states hundreds of prisoners, many just taliban fighters not terrorists. Many were bought from bounty hunters in Afghanistan who captured members of rival clans. These people have been detained for 5 years, habeas corpus is fundamental to western society and these people should be given the right to challenge the legality of their detention.

I am not saying that some of them might be jailed for wrong reasons, even though i think most of them even the taliban fighters are being jailed for reasons that are legal. Most of them are considered as pow's and so they can legally be detained until the end of the war. I do not say that its fair, but to single out the US when everyone holds pow is not fair either.

[von-Scharnhorst]

to single out the US when everyone holds pow is not fair either.
Who is "everyone"? And as far as I recall one of the problems was that the U.S would NOT give them POW status.

[Crowly]

No, Spades, what you're not getting here is the concept of 'due process.'

You can't just say 'we reckon you're a terrorist so we're going to strip you of human rights and hold you till we say otherwise' because they might not be a terrorist, that's the whole point of those courts, jury's, trials you may have seen on TV.

The inmates of Guantanemo, whilst I am sure that 90% of them are guilty as hell, still deserve the due process that is sacrosanct in ALL human's rights. What about the 1 innocent man in there (hypothetical) who's been without contact with his family, friends, legal counsel, for over 3 years. What are you gonna do, apologise when you let him go?

His life has been ruined, and not even ruined in a legal mistake way, it's been ruined in a foreign government has kidnapped me and thrown me in some cuban concentration camp sort of way.

SEE ABOVE SPADES.

Going to ignore some more?

[Spades]

SEE ABOVE SPADES.

Going to ignore some more?

Crowly YOUR MISTAKING LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCEPTS WITH WAR CONCEPTS. For instance if you drop a bomb on a city, you probably will kill innocent people. They didnt get any due process now did they? The whole concept of Due Process is that its a judicial concept. War is the absence of alot of rules judicial due process. They are very few cept geneva conventions that govern the rules of war. And one of those concepts is that those who fight without being soldiers of a country or a nation-state are pretty much considered terroists. And what few little protections there are for soldiers in the geneva conventions there are essentially no protections for terroists. Human rights is a nice justice concept but is not recognized by alot of countries. The United Nations gives a lot of lip service to this concept but countries all over the world do whatever they want and ignore what your calling basic human rights. Due process is not just a western concept its really only a american concept. Which means countries like afghaniston dont have this concept. (i wouldnt argue this topic because my dads attorney/law enforcentment officer) and so is my friends dad.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Oh well allways nice to say "I know someone". Hel, I know Angela Merkel, it does not make me a chancellor, or even give me a clue as to how I would do the job if I was given it.

I also know the milk delivery man, Guess what? I am not an expert dairy farmer, and I couldn't drive his bloody truck either.

[Spades]

Oh well allways nice to say "I know someone". Hel, I know Angela Merkel, it does not make me a chancellor, or even give me a clue as to how I would do the job if I was given it.

I also know the milk delivery man, Guess what? I am not an expert dairy farmer, and I couldn't drive his bloody truck either.

I was showing him this forum that i think is so tiresome and that idea was directly from his word of mouth. When i say i know him i didnt just say ideas and then go i know him. I used his exact words on the subject. If you think that post was wrong then tell me why it was wrong.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Due process is not just a western concept its really only a american concept.
For a start. Do you even know what it means?

[von-Scharnhorst]

In United States law, adopted from British law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation is analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular cases.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm

Show me where that is different to Germany, or the U.K.

Just because the damn U.S hick brains put it in the fifth and fourteenth amendments, does NOT mean you invented it, OR have sole rights to it.

May I remind you that the rest of the world were using “due process”, when you lot were still living in caves and pointing at the moon.

[Spades]

In United States law, adopted from British law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation is analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular cases.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm

Show me where that is different to Germany, or the U.K.

Just because the damn U.S hick brains put it in the fifth and fourteenth amendments, does NOT mean you invented it, OR have sole rights to it.

May I remind you that the rest of the world were using “due process”, when you lot were still living in caves and pointing at the moon.

First of all the American Constitution uses Due Process specifically discusses it and uses the term Due Process. What your citing is a general definition of Due process which is rather broad and you can say most countries have due process, which is some process. I dont claim familiar with what your German Constitution might say, so i'll ask you. Does it specifically call its protections Due process, or are you just claiming Germany has Due process protections under your previously cited general definition of due process. Please cite the german due process provisions prior to the cessation of hostilities in 1945 since i dont know what kind of changes were made to your government required by the ALLIED powers.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Please cite the german due process provisions prior to the cessation of hostilities in 1945 since i dont know what kind of changes were made to your government required by the ALLIED powers.
The constitution regarding the due process of law, the right to a fair, free and unbiased trial, to call witnesses, and to a defence, for every person, (Note this was pretty unusual in that it gave the same rights to non citizens as to citizens.) was embedded in the first Brandenburg-Prussian constitution. The year escapes me, but around 1200.

Typicaly a book I have been tripping over constantly for two bloody years, NOW can not be found.

The constitution of Iceland garunteed it in around 850.

First of all the American Constitution uses Due Process specifically discusses it and uses the term Due Process.Einstein described reletivity, Issac Newton described gravity, NOTE: THEY DID NOT INVENT EITHER.

Does it specifically call its protections Due process,No we do not speak shite English, we speak GERMAN. That may come as a surprise to you, what with the Americans inventing the world and all.

Ordentliches Gerichtsverfahren, OR, Ordnungsgemäßes verfahren.

[Crowly]

Another American believing what his silly textbooks teach him, they do grow so tiresome after a while.

The fact of the matter remains that even whilst in a state of war, a soldier has certain protected rights - which the USA is breaking, either that or they're civilians and the USA is breaking another whole host of rights.

You cannot redefine the laws as you go, because that's not what nice countries do.

Also Spades, your entire legal system is just a carbon copy of ours 250 years ago put down onto a raggety piece of paper and signed by some traitors, so don't go thinking it was a world changing document.

[von-Scharnhorst]

i must point out that ENGLISH is not shite. But that Americans speak it that way.

As my Father-in-law called it "chewing gum English".

[Eschew_Obfuscation]

The Guantanemo "situation" is being put through the legal process here. Just because one American does something, doesn't mean all Americans agree with it, or even think it's right. I'm too lazy to grab a link.

your entire legal system is just a carbon copy of ours 250 years ago put down onto a raggety piece of paper and signed by some traitors, so don't go thinking it was a world changing document.

Carbon copy is a little misleading, albeit not much was changed after the American 'revolution,' save for the flag and form of government.

That also being said, you should put things into historical context. The contitution was not the first piece of paper (not even the first on American soil) to define citizens' rights, allow democratic processes, or whatever claim you think it was the 'first' for, but it was the first that founded a modern Republic. That does make it somewhat important and somewhat 'world changing.'

i must point out that ENGLISH is not shite. But that Americans speak it that way.

Are you referring to certain Americans? I mean, certain accents/whatever? Off topic, but did you know that German was almost made the offical language of the US?

I'd like for someone to tell me I speak shite English.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Are you referring to certain Americans? I mean, certain accents whatever? Mostly Southern States. The Northern States seem to have a better grasp.

Off topic, but did you know that German was almost made the offical language of the US?
Aye. I heard tht moderately recently, ie within the last three years.

I'd like for someone to tell me I speak shite English.

As we can't hear you, we could not tell. Your written English seems way superior to a LOT of Americans I have seen on web sites.

[Spades]

Another American believing what his silly textbooks teach him, they do grow so tiresome after a while.

The fact of the matter remains that even whilst in a state of war, a soldier has certain protected rights - which the USA is breaking, either that or they're civilians and the USA is breaking another whole host of rights.

You cannot redefine the laws as you go, because that's not what nice countries do.

Also Spades, your entire legal system is just a carbon copy of ours 250 years ago put down onto a raggety piece of paper and signed by some traitors, so don't go thinking it was a world changing document.


Crowly you are forgetting that there are more than 2 classifcations of a person. Soldier and civilian are just a few. Actually evenly the geneve conventions recognize that there are specific requirements to be give the protections of a soldier or a civilian. Terrorists do not have the uniform or unified banner for someone to be given to be able to claim the protections of a soldier they have to meet certain criteria. For instance, wearing a uniform of their nation while armed and fighting. By the same token, if your involved in armed fighting against a nation during a state of war your not a civilian, and if you don't meet the requirements of a soldier guess what your not a soldier! Please read the article that i pasted in a prior thread. Otherwise prove to me of the rights that we are breaking in guantanamo.

"Another whole host of rights? You cannot redefine the laws as you go, because that's not what nice countries do" sources on this madness please?

Also Spades, your entire legal system is just a carbon copy of ours 250 years ago put down onto a raggety piece of paper and signed by some traitors, so don't go thinking it was a world changing document.[/QUOTE]

I was mostly arguing the Due process that von was talking about. Never claimed we invented everything. Yes our system is developed from yours but we have evolved since then. No one has ever disputed that the Americans judicial system developed from the English Common Law. But that does not mean that our consitution (which was not written on a raggety piece of paper but was written on a rather nicely written document) was a carbon copy of your system. As for being signed by traitors if we were looking at them under the geneva convention one can certaintitly argue that they were soldiers fighting against an oppressive regime. And as for it not being a world changing document, it seems to me that it is the basis of the worlds only remaining super power and one of the worlds leading economic engines which in the last century has had come bail your english butts out of trouble on at least two occasions.

[Spades]

The constitution regarding the due process of law, the right to a fair, free and unbiased trial, to call witnesses, and to a defence, for every person, (Note this was pretty unusual in that it gave the same rights to non citizens as to citizens.) was embedded in the first Brandenburg-Prussian constitution. The year escapes me, but around 1200.

Typicaly a book I have been tripping over constantly for two bloody years, NOW can not be found.

The constitution of Iceland garunteed it in around 850.

Einstein described reletivity, Issac Newton described gravity, NOTE: THEY DID NOT INVENT EITHER.
No we do not speak shite English, we speak GERMAN. That may come as a surprise to you, what with the Americans inventing the world and all.

Ordentliches Gerichtsverfahren, OR, Ordnungsgemäßes verfahren.

As for your brandenburg-prussian argument while it may just be in their it was most likely modeled after the English Magna Carta (from a quick search tho). Which your Prussian-brandenburg constitution was also cited and used quite a bit by Hitler mind you. Furthermore, Iceland has this in their constitution even though it was a Nordic country during the Dark Ages? Can you provide a site where i can read all these rights protected in the Icelandic Constitution (of 850 no current constitutions please).

As for your Language crack, Languages have been evolving and changing forever now do to each geographical areas slang terms.

[William]

Hypocrisy? I think so.

if your involved in armed fighting against a nation during a state of war your not a civilian, and if you don't meet the requirements of a soldier guess what your not a soldier!

one can certaintitly argue that they were soldiers fighting against an oppressive regime.

The American army in 1786 were rebels. They did rebel against the UK. But wait, they weren't a certified army were they? Does this mean that George Washington wasn't a soldier??

[Spades]

Hypocrisy? I think so.

if your involved in armed fighting against a nation during a state of war your not a civilian, and if you don't meet the requirements of a soldier guess what your not a soldier!

one can certaintitly argue that they were soldiers fighting against an oppressive regime.

The American army in 1786 were rebels. They did rebel against the UK. But wait, they weren't a certified army were they? Does this mean that George Washington wasn't a soldier??

Read the geneva convention, it provides soldier status for persons who otherwise are not soldiers of a member-state so long as they meet other criteria that conveys then soldier status. For example: wearing an identifieable uniform while involved in armed conflict with a member nation.

[Crowly]

So that means that the enemies in Iraq were not, in fact, soldiers but were civilians, an armed militia. You'd deal with that through civilian courts.

Also - immutable human right broken by guantanemo: Habeas Corpus.

You cannot abduct someone without evidence and hold them until you manage to find (fabricate) enough to justify it. Putting them through the courts, Eschew? Aren't we 4 years and counting now?

Who's going to be held to account for the innocent people in there who have lost 4 years (or 1/20th) of their lives due to American disregard for the fundamentals of law and justice?

[von-Scharnhorst]

Can you provide a site where i can read all these rights protected in the Icelandic Constitution (of 850 no current constitutions please).
I do not know of a particular site. But it is covered in things like "Njälls Saga" (the spelling of Njäll MAY vary). Or Egil Skallagrimsson, (Could also come under "Egils saga". "Burned Njälls saga", plus others.

I am pretty sur if you try Google on those two, you will find MILLIONS of pages. But try also the Icelandic Government web site, and that of the Icelandic historical societys.

Also a very good book which I believe is still in print, that covers quite a bit of Wiking law is;

Jones. G
A history of the Vikings
Oxford university press 1984.

[pplrblind]

Soldier or ot this is not right.

"After a month in Islamabad he was flown to a secret prison, which he believes was in Afghanistan, where all of the personnel (except possibly the interpreters) were American. There, he was held completely naked for a month and a half, filmed naked, and interrogated naked. He was chained tightly to the wall of his small cell so he could not stand up, placed in painful stress positions so that he had difficulty breathing, and warned that if he did not cooperate he would be put in a suffocating “dog box.” "

http://hrw.org/reports/2007/us0207/1.htm#_Toc159752290.

The new report provides the most comprehensive account to date of life in a secret CIA prison, as well as new information regarding 38 possible detainees. The report explains that these prisoners’ treatment by the CIA constitutes enforced disappearance, a practice that is absolutely prohibited under international law.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/26/usint15408.htm

[janahitwadi]

Soldier or ot this is not right.

"After a month in Islamabad he was flown to a secret prison, which he believes was in Afghanistan, where all of the personnel (except possibly the interpreters) were American. There, he was held completely naked for a month and a half, filmed naked, and interrogated naked. He was chained tightly to the wall of his small cell so he could not stand up, placed in painful stress positions so that he had difficulty breathing, and warned that if he did not cooperate he would be put in a suffocating “dog box.” "

http://hrw.org/reports/2007/us0207/1.htm#_Toc159752290.
Jabour confirmed that he had received training for terrorist activities in other countries. He did take part in terrorist activities. Why does he expect royal treatment to himself? Did he feel bad killing innocent people? Whatever treatment he got should not create any sympathy in minds of human rights activists.

The new report provides the most comprehensive account to date of life in a secret CIA prison, as well as new information regarding 38 possible detainees. The report explains that these prisoners’ treatment by the CIA constitutes enforced disappearance, a practice that is absolutely prohibited under international law.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/26/usint15408.htm
Terrorists do not deserve any lawful treatment. They break laws so should not expect others to abide by laws.

[Spades]

Jabour confirmed that he had received training for terrorist activities in other countries. He did take part in terrorist activities. Why does he expect royal treatment to himself? Did he feel bad killing innocent people? Whatever treatment he got should not create any sympathy in minds of human rights activists.


Terrorists do not deserve any lawful treatment. They break laws so should not expect others to abide by laws.

Janhaitwadi thats a litte harsh. Even though i have no sympathy whatsoever for the guy Torture in itself is wrong.

What bothers me about this article is that a confessed terroist, who could easily have an agenda, is believable. The Human rights watch uses him as their crutch for accusations. While he might have recieved some humiliation or torture, to what extent no one can be sure. I find it hard to believe such an accurate account of what happened to him and the fact that he would not have mentally gone insane. The Human Rights watch seems to have an Agenda to because this is their main basis in this article.

In other words these articles have a questionable validitity to them.

[Spades]

I do not know of a particular site. But it is covered in things like "Njälls Saga" (the spelling of Njäll MAY vary). Or Egil Skallagrimsson, (Could also come under "Egils saga". "Burned Njälls saga", plus others.

I am pretty sur if you try Google on those two, you will find MILLIONS of pages. But try also the Icelandic Government web site, and that of the Icelandic historical societys.

Also a very good book which I believe is still in print, that covers quite a bit of Wiking law is;

Jones. G
A history of the Vikings
Oxford university press 1984.

heres what i found about their history.

http://iceland.vefur.is/Iceland_history/history.htm

The colonization of Iceland didnt begin until 870, and the shortilived republic era started after that. But soon Iceland went through a long Dark Age and was ruled by Danish Monarchs. Did it happen during the Republic Age? (i doubt it happened through the Dark Age).

[Eschew_Obfuscation]

Putting them through the courts, Eschew? Aren't we 4 years and counting now?

Yeah. I'm finding it morally impossible to even explain Guantanemo, let alone defend it.

Mostly Southern States. The Northern States seem to have a better grasp.

Actually, I agree, as do most other Americans as well. Just to clarify for other non American posters, it's the American Southeast.

[Spades]

So that means that the enemies in Iraq were not, in fact, soldiers but were civilians, an armed militia. You'd deal with that through civilian courts.

Also - immutable human right broken by guantanemo: Habeas Corpus.

You cannot abduct someone without evidence and hold them until you manage to find (fabricate) enough to justify it. Putting them through the courts, Eschew? Aren't we 4 years and counting now?

Who's going to be held to account for the innocent people in there who have lost 4 years (or 1/20th) of their lives due to American disregard for the fundamentals of law and justice?

You classify someon as a soldier or a civilian. There are more classifications than that and even the Geneva conventions recognize this.

Immutable human right broken by guantanemo: Habeas Corpus.
^---- that is some Nonsense

It is not an automatic right first off. You have to petition why you are being held
Secondly its not an Immutable right. Its a nice theory but its not Guaranteed everywhere, even the Geneva Conventions say that a soldier can be held indefinitely. There have even been courts that have upheld the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

With the MCA's passage, the law altered the language from “alien detained … at Guantánamo Bay”:

“Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
On 20 February 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld this provision of the MCA in a 2-1 decision. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Under the MCA, the law restricts habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as "enemy combatants," or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged is the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status is upheld, then their imprisonment is deemed lawful; if not, then the government can change the prisoner's status to something else, at which point the habeas restrictions no longer apply.

Furthermore

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.

As such, the law could be extended to US citizens and held if left unchecked

[pplrblind]

"The report explains that these prisoners’ treatment by the CIA constitutes enforced disappearance, a practice that is absolutely prohibited under international law. "

If we are to be the good guys we must obey the law or how can we expect them to. Mearly saying that they dont obide by it is not grounds for us to, Hitler killed 6 million jews, can we? No most certainly not because we are the good guys (or supposed to be anyway)

[von-Scharnhorst]

The colonization of Iceland didnt begin until 870, and the shortilived republic era started after that. But soon Iceland went through a long Dark Age and was ruled by Danish Monarchs. Did it happen during the Republic Age? (i doubt it happened through the Dark Age).
As the site sais;
930 - The first Althing (Parliament) and the establishment of the Republic of Iceland at Þingvellir (http://www.south.is/thingvellir.html) plains. Beginning of the Free State. In this first nationwide ssembly, the delegates adopted a constitution for the whole land modelled on the Norwegian constitution. Alþing was to be held annually in midsummer for 14 days to decide all matters related to justice, trade, marriages, disputes and so on.This is when the laws re the equal rights of all to a free and fair trial, and defence were brought in. Also Habeus corpus. (Which the U.K has now abolished, by the way)1380 – 97 - Iceland and Norway come under the Danish crown. An event that further worsened the conditions in the country. Icelandic chieftains abolished and replaced by Danish royal officials. Alþing became a court of law, judges chosen by royal officers.1939 to 1942 large parts of Europe came under Nazi occupation. It did not make them nazi.

The constitution MAY have been shelved, but as it sais;
a constitution for the whole land modelled on the Norwegian constitution.So, allthough under an occupying power, the "civil rights" are more than likely to have remained the same. Unlike during the Nazi occupations.

I have found that book I was tripping over as well.

The Prussian constitution, the first 18 or so rules, have been taken virtualy word for word as the Bundesrepublik constitution, of which the first 18 rules are known as the "Grundgesetz", or "foundation (of the state) rules. As they were in the Prussian period.

So the freedoms and rights remain the same.

The bits that have been dropped are the ones giving the Kaiser and the King their powers.

[Crowly]

I feel the need to translate your own posts back to you, as I don't think you quite understand what you're saying.

“Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

This says that no judge is allowed to even listen to appeals for the right to due legal process by anyone, for anyone, anytime.

You realise this is in effect an unchecked legal apparatus for the apprehension and imprisonment of any foreign person for no reason, since they can be detained and 'awaiting determination' indefinitely.

Now I ask you - is this the sort of law you'd expect to find in a 1st world nation? Let alone the self proclaimed leader of the free world.

Under the MCA, the law restricts habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as "enemy combatants," or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged is the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status is upheld, then their imprisonment is deemed lawful; if not, then the government can change the prisoner's status to something else, at which point the habeas restrictions no longer apply.

So once more into the translation breech, my friends.

This is saying that if the USA defines them as a combatant, without trial then they have automatically made their imprisonment legal.

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.

Well, good luck to you, America, my gov't can't and won't rescind my right to habeas corpus. Have fun with your 3am knocks on the door.

[von-Scharnhorst]

my gov't can't and won't rescind my right to habeas corpus.
Sorry to butt in here, but you are too late, they HAVE.

I will try and find the link.

[Spades]

I feel the need to translate your own posts back to you, as I don't think you quite understand what you're saying.

You do not like to read everything do you? I shouldn't quote things because then you'll quote only part of the message and try to display it as fact.

Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
On 20 February 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld this provision of the MCA in a 2-1 decision. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Forget this part? Think ya did

Habeaus Corpus is basically saying that you want to know why you are being held and if its just otherwise i should not be held. It is not an AUTOMATIC right. The United States isnt gonna waste time on a not-guaranteed right for some guy they caught shooting at them.

Secondly, there is a limit TO EVERY right out there. For instance life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government can execute and that is technically taking away someones right to life now is it.

Thirdly, TERROISTS ARE NOT CIVILIANS. oh wait maybe this will help you out T-E-R-R-O-I-S-T A-R-E N-O-T C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S. They also do not meet the requirements for a soldier, so the Geneva Conventions nice little protections for soldiers unfortunately does not apply.

"Well, good luck to you, America, my gov't can't and won't rescind my right to habeas corpus. Have fun with your 3am knocks on the door"

I dont know what your trying to say seeings that there are only talking about TERROISTS. Dont stretch the truth like that.

The article i posted should have explained everything to you because he is an expert, at least more versed in the law. YOU ARE NOT.

Btw, i dont label you as a nut like you probably have labeled me. But meh

[Spades]

In 930, the ruling chiefs established an assembly called the Alþingi (English: Althing). The parliament convened each summer at Þingvellir, where representative chieftains (Goðorðsmenn or Goðar) amended laws, settled disputes and appointed juries to judge lawsuits. Laws were not written down, but were instead memorized by an elected "lögsögumaður", or Speaker of the law. The Alþingi is sometimes stated to be the world's oldest existing parliament. Importantly, there was no central executive power, and therefore laws were enforced only by the people. Such an environment is very conducive to blood-feuds, which provided the writers of the sagas with plenty of material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iceland

This is what i got from it, and your probably right but i cannot find anything on it. Then again i dont know a ton about Iceland so meh.

I didnt mean because they were under the Danish Rule that they became Danish. I jsut meant they wbere subject to a Monarchy and no longer had their Parliament (Which is the worlds First Parliament). Which mean things like a constitution and rights usually dont hold under a foreign monarchy.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Then again i dont know a ton about Iceland so meh.
Well Wiking history and religion was my first degree. (Or was it second? hard to tell, as I was taking them both more or less in parallel.) And I am myself the family "lögsögumaður" . Given the rank from my Grandfather at the age of 27.

There is more to it than just "law" as well. It includes an equal knowledge of "Lore".

My Grandmother was the head and shaman of the family, my Grandfather the priest "Godhar") and me the lögsögumaður.

As the others are now snuffed. Then I guess that make ME the head of the family. But as the rest of the family have also snuffed it, it is rather a "paper division".

Which mean things like a constitution and rights usually dont hold under a foreign monarchy.I would agree that this was the case when the Normanns invaded Britain. They had two seperate legal systems. The English was more Saxon/Wiking (Off course), whereas the Normann had been heavily influenced by Roman, or cannon law, and to a lesser degree, the West Frankish law, which was more Kelt in out look.

But With Iceland beig modelled on the Norwegian constitution and law, and Denmark being allmost EXACTLY the same, then the actual effects on justice would not be felt.

The only difference would be WHO people were being prosecuted "in the name of". NOT the way the prosecution was carried out.

[pplrblind]

"The report explains that these prisoners’ treatment by the CIA constitutes enforced disappearance, a practice that is absolutely prohibited under international law. "

How many times Spades?

In pre-war Germany, Hitler burned down the reichstag (German parliament) and blamed it on "communists", their "terrorist", and brought through the enabling act, whixh said that if you are a suspected "communist" then they can kick in your door and take you away without trial etc. Does this sound familiar to you spades?

Terrorist or not they are human beings and deserve human rights.

[von-Scharnhorst]

which said that if you are a suspected "communist" then they can kick in your door and take you away without trial etc. Does this sound familiar to you spades?
Good parallel. :D.....................

[Crowly]

On 20 February 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld this provision of the MCA in a 2-1 decision. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Forget this part? Think ya did

I think I quoted it. It really has no bearing on what I said though, it's still your gov't saying they don't need to justify their actions.

Habeaus Corpus is basically saying that you want to know why you are being held and if its just otherwise i should not be held. It is not an AUTOMATIC right. The United States isnt gonna waste time on a not-guaranteed right for some guy they caught shooting at them.

Some guy they say they caught shooting at them, without evidence, without having to justify their actions, without any form of judicial checks and/or balances.

Can you seriously say you think this is right?

Secondly, there is a limit TO EVERY right out there. For instance life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government can execute and that is technically taking away someones right to life now is it.

No civilised nation executes people, and haven't done for about 3 decades.

Thirdly, TERROISTS ARE NOT CIVILIANS. oh wait maybe this will help you out T-E-R-R-O-I-S-T A-R-E N-O-T C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S. They also do not meet the requirements for a soldier, so the Geneva Conventions nice little protections for soldiers unfortunately does not apply.

So they're not civilians, they're not soldiers, they're a new imaginary definition invented by the US of A in order to justify ignoring all human rights laws, both civil and military?

Not to mention the fact that you've not proved they're terrorists, you've just decided they are based on whatever evidence you can be bothered to fabricate at the time - not that it matters, because you don't have to show anyone any evidence anyway.

I reiterate; you actually can't see the dangerous, imorral and slippery slope that you are charging down full pelt?

I dont know what your trying to say seeings that there are only talking about TERROISTS. Dont stretch the truth like that.

Who's the terrorist? What about the few released from Guantanemo who were actually just holidaymakers? Ones that have had a year of their lives stolen from them without due legal recourse?

And if you've made one mistake, then doesn't that literally guarantee that there are other mistakes? People, innocent people, languishing away in your concentration camps whilst you bald facedly say this is for the greater good.

The article i posted should have explained everything to you because he is an expert, at least more versed in the law. YOU ARE NOT.

Which expert? The US attorney general? I should hope so.

Btw, i dont label you as a nut like you probably have labeled me. But meh

I honestly just think you're another brainwashed American.

[claire]

B-Y-T-H-E-W-A-Y-Y-O-U-R-S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G-S-T-U-F-F-O-U-T-J-O-K-E-D-O-E-S-N-O-T-W-O-R-K-Y-O-U-R-T-Y-P-I-N-G

[Spades]

"The report explains that these prisoners’ treatment by the CIA constitutes enforced disappearance, a practice that is absolutely prohibited under international law. "

How many times Spades?

In pre-war Germany, Hitler burned down the reichstag (German parliament) and blamed it on "communists", their "terrorist", and brought through the enabling act, whixh said that if you are a suspected "communist" then they can kick in your door and take you away without trial etc. Does this sound familiar to you spades?

Terrorist or not they are human beings and deserve human rights.

Where was this quote from? Did i write it, because i dont remember writing it but i have posted quite a bit.

If you are refering to habeus corpus then you should know that it has been suspended by Abraham Lincoln as well. Or during WWII do you think the captured german soldiers got a trial? I think not. Secondly you are referring to something going on in the United States, and something going on in a War Zone. Even my speech teacher said alot of people screw up persuading by analogy, just because your analogy sounds good doesnt mean it relates well to what you are talking about.

[Spades]

I think I quoted it. It really has no bearing on what I said though, it's still your gov't saying they don't need to justify their actions.



Some guy they say they caught shooting at them, without evidence, without having to justify their actions, without any form of judicial checks and/or balances.

Can you seriously say you think this is right?



No civilised nation executes people, and haven't done for about 3 decades.



So they're not civilians, they're not soldiers, they're a new imaginary definition invented by the US of A in order to justify ignoring all human rights laws, both civil and military?

Not to mention the fact that you've not proved they're terrorists, you've just decided they are based on whatever evidence you can be bothered to fabricate at the time - not that it matters, because you don't have to show anyone any evidence anyway.

I reiterate; you actually can't see the dangerous, imorral and slippery slope that you are charging down full pelt?



Who's the terrorist? What about the few released from Guantanemo who were actually just holidaymakers? Ones that have had a year of their lives stolen from them without due legal recourse?

And if you've made one mistake, then doesn't that literally guarantee that there are other mistakes? People, innocent people, languishing away in your concentration camps whilst you bald facedly say this is for the greater good.



Which expert? The US attorney general? I should hope so.



I honestly just think you're another brainwashed American.

A) The decision was upheld in the Court which means we can hold them.
B) If there was no evidence you might have had an argument. But somewhere someone said that the people in guantanamo were terrorists. I dont care if it was only the guy that was buying the food for the guy that made the bombs. I consider him guilty as well. Most if not all are terroists and have a large amount of evidence to give at least reasonable suspicion.
C) No civilized nation executes people you say? What about Japan, (and us). I know there is at least one other nation that does it as well.
D) Oh those holiday makers that you were talking about were released on .... military tribunals.. <gasp> guess they did get some kind of hearing. Furthermore do you want to know whats even funnier. They found one of those "innocent guys" back on the battlefield. How many Americans had to lose their lives because of this. Note: Military Tribunals
E) So your saying you are more an expert than this guy. I doubt it, you cant let go of your pride and lack of understanding of what you are talking about.
F) Maybe it is you that cannot see how many people have to die because of your misconception of habeas corpus.

[Spades]

B-Y-T-H-E-W-A-Y-Y-O-U-R-S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G-S-T-U-F-F-O-U-T-J-O-K-E-D-O-E-S-N-O-T-W-O-R-K-Y-O-U-R-T-Y-P-I-N-G

Guess what I USED SPACES when i did it.

[pplrblind]

A) The decision was upheld in the Court which means we can hold them.
An American court


B) If there was no evidence you might have had an argument. But somewhere someone said that the people in guantanamo were terrorists. I dont care if it was only the guy that was buying the food for the guy that made the bombs. I consider him guilty as well. Most if not all are terroists and have a large amount of evidence to give at least reasonable suspicion.
What about a neighbour that didnt he didnt get along with. Resonable suspicion, thats a good enough reason to hold someone for 5 years


D) Oh those holiday makers that you were talking about were released on .... military tribunals.. <gasp> guess they did get some kind of hearing. Furthermore do you want to know whats even funnier. They found one of those "innocent guys" back on the battlefield. How many Americans had to lose their lives because of this. Note: Military Tribunals

How do you know that they were back on the battle field?


"The report explains that these prisoners’ treatment by the CIA constitutes enforced disappearance, a practice that is absolutely prohibited under international law. "
This quote was from report by the Human rights watch. Forced disapearances, to a "terrorist" or not, are illegal.

Have you heard of the patriot act, its quite well known. It strips Americans of quite a few of there civil libeties

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

[Crowly]

A) The decision was upheld in the Court which means we can hold them.
B) If there was no evidence you might have had an argument. But somewhere someone said that the people in guantanamo were terrorists. I dont care if it was only the guy that was buying the food for the guy that made the bombs. I consider him guilty as well. Most if not all are terroists and have a large amount of evidence to give at least reasonable suspicion.

Haha. Sorry but I can't help but laugh.

Let's address the first point initially - there is no way to definitively say that a person selling food to a front company for terrorism actually knows what they're doing. I respect your view of reasonable doubt, I just don't think that it's sufficient to start suspending human rights.

Yes, yes, I know that you don't think Habeas corpus is a human right, but I am afraid the vast majority of the world, including the UN, seem to disagree.


C) No civilized nation executes people you say? What about Japan, (and us). I know there is at least one other nation that does it as well.

Really? Well I wouldn't consider Japan particularly socially advanced.

Hey, I thought about working this through with an amazing discourse, but you know what? This picture speaks more than a thousand words ever could.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3816/800pxdeathpenaltyworldmao2.png

Take a long, good look at who you're grouped with.

Feel free to get back to me on this.

D) Oh those holiday makers that you were talking about were released on .... military tribunals.. <gasp> guess they did get some kind of hearing. Furthermore do you want to know whats even funnier. They found one of those "innocent guys" back on the battlefield. How many Americans had to lose their lives because of this. Note: Military Tribunals

One out of how many? I don't think you fully attribute the same weight to innocence that I do. An innocent man is inviolate. You understand that? Inviolate? Anything done to them by a judicial party is a grevious wrong.

E) So your saying you are more an expert than this guy. I doubt it, you cant let go of your pride and lack of understanding of what you are talking about.

Hah!

F) Maybe it is you that cannot see how many people have to die because of your misconception of habeas corpus.

It is better that 1,000,000 die in the fight to stop wrongdoing than to stoop to wrongdoing yourself to stop 1 man. This is the essential difference in ideology between civilisation and America.

[claire]

I can't read the map, where'd you get it?

[Crowly]

Red = has death penalty.

Blue = abolished for all crimes.

Orange = abolished in practice.

Can't read green. Wikipedia.

[claire]

Your map is wrong, not all states have the death penalty.

[Spades]

Heres my take on it since you brought this wrongdoing thing up. I hold everyone in Iraq at least partially accountable for Saddam's Actions. It is essentially their country, their society, their government. So it was partially their fault that the regime was in power. So when their regime invaded kuwait and used chemical warfare, or when they used chemical warfare on the kurds i hold them partially accountable. Add this to the fact that the prisoners get a military tribunal hearings this is how i hold them accountable.

Secondly, you are right in all circumstances not-relating to War i think everyone should have these rights. But in being captured by America is better than being captured by ALOT of other countries. As i am sure you are going to laugh at this comment but i dont c how you can.

Everyone agrees with you on habeaus corpus u say? What about China? What UN resolution says this? Not some UN sub-committee i am talking about the UN themselves.

You generalized what everyone else thinks way to much.

Why do you choose to insult america so much? We are a good civilization.

[Spades]

Red = has death penalty.

Blue = abolished for all crimes.

Orange = abolished in practice.

Can't read green. Wikipedia.

abolished for all crimes except in exceptional circumstances or something

[Spades]

What about a neighbour that didnt he didnt get along with. Resonable suspicion, thats a good enough reason to hold someone for 5 years

First off, its War. The only essential rules for War are the ones in the Geneva Conventions. Applying Judicial terms and concepts to War isnt logical. War is the absence of rules in itself.

I'll find the link for ya

That quote while is true to non-war situations, war changes the situation dramatically. Shooting someone takes away alot of their liberties.

Patriot Act eh. Your right it strips us of our right to privacy. But funny thing is i was reading the constition and i dont know where it says that we have a right to privacy. Hmmm interesting.

[stevectaylor]

The next election will resolve this onw:rolleyes:

[stevectaylor]

The next election will resolve this one:rolleyes:

[Spades]

The next election will resolve this one:rolleyes:

Elections are popularity contests

[von-Scharnhorst]

Aye. I used to take the pizz when I worked on the campaigns for the Tories (I KNOW, I KNOW, I was only 21. Iwas naive!!). That 90% of them would vote for Hitler, Stalin or Mira bloody Hindley to be in charge of education, if they had decent haircuts and a nice smile.

[Crowly]

*raised eyebrow*

Nothing wrong with the Tory's.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Nothing wrong with the Tory's.
Must admit, given the present bunch, then the "bad old Maggie days" are looking more and more like "The good ol' days".

[Crowly]

I like Maggie Thatcher.