Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11

 

2006-09-30 05:54:19
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

Varegg wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Varegg wrote:

First the Patriot Act and now this, way to go America - this is true democracy and justice for all !

A thing that comes to mind as a direct reference is that now all Americans have the same legal protection as the citizens of Mother Russia had ......... 25 years ago !
Yeah, ok troll go back under your bridge.  Want to back that up with facts....?

Than why have most Democrats supported the Patriot act and still do to this day.  I can think of no less than 15 Democratic U.S. Senators off the top of my head that STILL support it to this day.

I highly doubt you've even read the patriot act let alone understand its implications.
The patriot act and the latest bill passed is fact enought dont you think ?

And you are right sir, i haven`t read it in full lenght - i have read parts of it and have been referred enough from friends living in the US to get a grasp on what this means for legal protection, i have a good level of understanding when it comes to international law since i often enough has to implement it with my work.

And what fact can you back up your idiotic statement with that i dont know what i`m talking about ?
International law, I see, so than if you are talking about Americans' rights, what does THAT have to do with international law?  What fact do I need, I asked you two questions, you only answered one.

Your "friends" have obviously not made it clear that the Patriot act does NOT give up any civil liberties or rights, it still requires the government to obtain warrants, it still requires them to fill out massive paperwork, and obtain permission for just about everything. 

So please answer my highlighted question above and this one if you don't mind.

What rights have we lost? Specifically?
2006-09-30 05:58:19
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Varegg wrote:

First the Patriot Act and now this, way to go America - this is true democracy and justice for all !

A thing that comes to mind as a direct reference is that now all Americans have the same legal protection as the citizens of Mother Russia had ......... 25 years ago !
Yeah, ok troll go back under your bridge.  Want to back that up with facts....?

Than why have most Democrats supported the Patriot act and still do to this day.  I can think of no less than 15 Democratic U.S. Senators off the top of my head that STILL support it to this day.

I highly doubt you've even read the patriot act let alone understand its implications.
You're the troll. He can express his opinions if he wants, you shouldn't try to provoke aggression by taking some unreasonable offense to them.

And sorry, but contrary to popular republican belief, the Democratic party is not liberal, and neither are democrats.
I did speak a little hastily, I apologize for that to you Varegg.  But I'm just so used to seeing this nutty "FANTASY" that the Patriot act has taken some rights away from American citizens........you really think it would have passed if it did that, cmon.

Contrary to popular belief.......the Democratic party is not liberal.........maybe if your talking SUPER SEMANTICS jon, but with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinsteinn, Barbara Boxer, Hilary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and massive other liberals in the Democratic party, I find that quite hard to believe.  Please explain what you mean.  IF you mean the original concepts of the Democratic party, like that of FDR or JFK, than I can understand, however the Democratic party today, is VERY liberal.

Case in fact:
Jon, do you live in the United States?
Can you vote?
What type of candidates do you vote for the majority of the time (R or D)
Do you consider yourself liberal?

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-30 05:59:00)

2006-09-30 06:03:50
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7064|Nårvei

I will not bother arguing this case with you, you are in your right to believe whatever and so am i !

Your highlighted question : The Senators must themselves answer why they give peoples rights away so easily.

What rights you have lost : With the latest bill - your legal protection to face a judge and jury if the government think you conspire with terrorists !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2006-09-30 06:05:19
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

Varegg wrote:

I will not bother arguing this case with you, you are in your right to believe whatever and so am i !

Your highlighted question : The Senators must themselves answer why they give peoples rights away so easily.

What rights you have lost : With the latest bill - your legal protection to face a judge and jury if the government think you conspire with terrorists !


There is still a process though, they can't, and don't on a large basis, just go rounding people (innocent civilians) up.  Thats ridicolous, and that is just plain conjecture. 

I mean specifically with the PATRIOT ACT what rights have been lost???

I agree you can believe whatever you want, it may not be true, because you are lacking some facts to base up a claim that you came up with.  The burden of proof is not mine, because there have NOT been any rights lost due to the PATRIOT ACT.

Varegg wrote:

A thing that comes to mind as a direct reference is that now all Americans have the same legal protection as the citizens of Mother Russia had ......... 25 years ago !
Please provide facts as to how American citizens are losing so many rights just like Totalatarianstic Russia..............

The problem is you can't.  You can't even begin to compare the U.S.S.R. with America today, that is completely asinine.  I think you should have the right to believe what you want, but you are basing most of your thoughts here on pure emotion.  No citizen has lost a right to face a judge.  If you are conspiring with terrorists, you shouldn't even face a judge because that is called treason my friend.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-30 06:11:02)

2006-09-30 06:23:58
jonsimon
Member
+224|6749

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:


Yeah, ok troll go back under your bridge.  Want to back that up with facts....?

Than why have most Democrats supported the Patriot act and still do to this day.  I can think of no less than 15 Democratic U.S. Senators off the top of my head that STILL support it to this day.

I highly doubt you've even read the patriot act let alone understand its implications.
You're the troll. He can express his opinions if he wants, you shouldn't try to provoke aggression by taking some unreasonable offense to them.

And sorry, but contrary to popular republican belief, the Democratic party is not liberal, and neither are democrats.
I did speak a little hastily, I apologize for that to you Varegg.  But I'm just so used to seeing this nutty "FANTASY" that the Patriot act has taken some rights away from American citizens........you really think it would have passed if it did that, cmon.

Contrary to popular belief.......the Democratic party is not liberal.........maybe if your talking SUPER SEMANTICS jon, but with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinsteinn, Barbara Boxer, Hilary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and massive other liberals in the Democratic party, I find that quite hard to believe.  Please explain what you mean.  IF you mean the original concepts of the Democratic party, like that of FDR or JFK, than I can understand, however the Democratic party today, is VERY liberal.

Case in fact:
Jon, do you live in the United States?
Can you vote?
What type of candidates do you vote for the majority of the time (R or D)
Do you consider yourself liberal?
Likewise, I hate the constant nutty "trust our politicians, its not like they lie to us" view.

The Democrats are painted as liberal, but they are not. The truth is in a two party system both parties tend toward the same exact viewpoint.

I cannot vote as of yet, and yes I am told I am liberal though I only think what is rational. Hypothetically I would vote Democrat simply because it is my only choice besides the party in power. This says nothing for my agreement with democratic political views. It conveys only my hopes for change.

It is an economic tendency for both parties in a two party system to tend to the same position on all issues.
2006-09-30 07:18:10
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7064|Nårvei

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

The problem is you can't.  You can't even begin to compare the U.S.S.R. with America today, that is completely asinine.  I think you should have the right to believe what you want, but you are basing most of your thoughts here on pure emotion.  No citizen has lost a right to face a judge.  If you are conspiring with terrorists, you shouldn't even face a judge because that is called treason my friend.
No emotions my good man, and i compare to the U.S.S.R. because your legal system starts to look like what they had some years ago.

And when you put words in my mouth read my post a little more carefully cause i agree that conspiring with terrorists is a major offense but i wrote if the government think you are conspiring.

One scenario a friend of mine from the US (a lawyer btw) came up with : Say you are in conflict with someone else, they cant get to you by any other means than foul play - they "plant" a story and some scarce evidence that can lead others to believe you have dealings, thoughts or relations against the government - now this is a though experiment only - government agents get an anonymous tip concerning your "dealings" against the government and you get towed in

..... the rest of the story have two directions to follow :

1. The pre detainee bill.
2. The post detainee bill.

Chose the one you would rather have if you should ever come in such a situation !


And before you start accusing me of hating the US i dont, i love the so called American way and i have many friends there - and when they are starting to get concerned about their basic rights as human beings i feel for them.

First you swallowed the Patriot Act giving up a few minor rights for the greater good, now the detainee bill have been passed giving up more and bigger rights - what will the next act or bill cost you ?

Dont be so afraid of the rest of the world that you forget the threat your own politicians represents !

Being a patriot and standing up for your country is a good thing but it is your right to question your government and do it before you loose that right as well !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2006-09-30 07:31:52
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

Varegg wrote:

No emotions my good man, and i compare to the U.S.S.R. because your legal system starts to look like what they had some years ago.
I Disagree.
And when you put words in my mouth read my post a little more carefully cause i agree that conspiring with terrorists is a major offense but i wrote if the government think you are conspiring.
Yes I know you said think, I was just emphasizing.  I read it just fine.

One scenario a friend of mine from the US (a lawyer btw) came up with : Say you are in conflict with someone else, they cant get to you by any other means than foul play - they "plant" a story and some scarce evidence that can lead others to believe you have dealings, thoughts or relations against the government - now this is a though experiment only - government agents get an anonymous tip concerning your "dealings" against the government and you get towed in

..... the rest of the story have two directions to follow :

1. The pre detainee bill.
2. The post detainee bill.

Chose the one you would rather have if you should ever come in such a situation !
LMFAO, thats a ridicolous situation, cute, but doesn't happen, you can't just "Plant" that kind of evidence unless you have A LOT of money, if someone is willing to spend so much money to frame you, you should be thinking about what you did to piss them off.
And before you start accusing me of hating the US i dont, i love the so called American way and i have many friends there - and when they are starting to get concerned about their basic rights as human beings i feel for them.
I don't think you hate the U.S. never crossed my mind.

First you swallowed the Patriot Act giving up a few minor rights for the greater good, now the detainee bill have been passed giving up more and bigger rights - what will the next act or bill cost you ?
WHAT RIGHTS, you say a few minor rights but you can't even name one
Being a patriot and standing up for your country is a good thing but it is your right to question your government and do it before you loose that right as well !
I agree.
2006-09-30 08:45:16
sneeky_fluff
Member
+1|6752
Forgive the slightly ignorant post here (especially considering the two tracks that this disscussion has taken) but the definition of hostile given is bugging me. It appears that hostile implies hostility aimed at the administration and while the focus is on material based actions (funding, arming ...etc) people seem to have forgotten that the definition of material actions can be extended quite easily. Take the following example (from the UK but hey, its easier for me to describe a hypothetical case which I am familiar with) of the protests against the war, police action or however you feel you want to define it.
From a technical standpoint it could be considered treason (over here) if one considers the country to have been in a state of war (one is essentially hindering the war effort by disrupting the economic infra-structure, therefore inpeding the ability to produce and mobilise resources). However this got me thinking, taking the definition of material based hostility (given on page 1 or 2 I believe) one could reasonably (if they so wished) extend the definition across to bar protest. If the act of protesting disrupts the economic infra-structure, then in essenece protests can be percieved as acting as a form of material hostility against the administration.
This opens the foor for the administration to effectivly begin to prohibit rally's, under the guise that they constitute a form of material hostility. While I agree that this is a tenuous link, one must first remember that even the most extreme action started with a single step. As a result, I think that this bill is one of the worst ideas implemented, not for what it is but for what it represents, a small step in the direction that could end in disaster and dark times..... the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.
2006-09-30 10:23:35
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|6909|United States of America
We have three branches of government in the US.  All the morons that are worried about "the man" taking away their rights have no clue about how the government works.  The power in the US is not centralized enough.  Not only is the Federal power not concentrated, but you also have 50 states all sharing power. 

Liberals just whine a lot and don't care about the country.
2006-09-30 10:57:23
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida
This thread is scary.  Torture sympathizers are as much of a threat to this country as terrorist sympathizers, in my opinion.
2006-09-30 11:02:56
An Enlarged Liver
Member
+35|6997|Backward Ass Kansas

Colfax wrote:

aardfrith wrote:

Colfax wrote:

You and the media are looking at this in its EXTREME CASE.  If your not doing things suspiciously and acting like a terrorist then you will be fine.  Your not gonna get thrown in a military prison for speeding or something ridiculous.

I think this gives our country the tools they need to fight terrorism. 

You can't take liberties away from those who don't believe in them and want to only kill people.
I wonder how many Germans said that in the 1930's?
when we will kill 6 million Jews we can come back to this comment.


i can't wait for the likes of poe and other libs commenting on this.  the anticipation is killing me
13000 iraqis is a godd start anyway......

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
2006-09-30 11:09:19
jonsimon
Member
+224|6749

Major_Spittle wrote:

We have three branches of government in the US.  All the morons that are worried about "the man" taking away their rights have no clue about how the government works.  The power in the US is not centralized enough.  Not only is the Federal power not concentrated, but you also have 50 states all sharing power. 

Liberals just whine a lot and don't care about the country.
Feds trump the states in all things military currently. And checks and balances are nothing if the people in the senate and the courts favor unconstitutional policies.
2006-09-30 11:18:51
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6754|Los Angeles

Major_Spittle wrote:

We have three branches of government in the US.  All the morons that are worried about "the man" taking away their rights have no clue about how the government works.  The power in the US is not centralized enough.  Not only is the Federal power not concentrated, but you also have 50 states all sharing power.
It's cute that when agitated, so many of the Bush supporters in this forum resort to name-calling. Guys, if you are going to be mean, at least do it in a creative or witty way.

You say we have no clue about how the government works. Then you say the power in the US is not centralized "enough". Enough for what? Enough to take away rights? If that's not what you mean, please finish your statement.

If it IS what you mean - YOU'RE not paying attention. This bill DOES take away rights. It's very clear and simple. I challenge you to read the following and tell us EXACTLY how we're not understanding the situation correctly.

1) The bill does not define "hostilities", so the onus is on the Pentagon to decide what constituties "hostilities".

2) Therefore, they can declare ANYONE to be an "enemy combatant" if they feel like they are. There is no requirement of evidence.

3) Once they've detained someone, they can "interrogate" them. This bill effectively grants them the legal right to use interrogation techniques that the rest of the world considers torture, techniques that have been considered torture in America as per Congressional law for over 60 years (which was when Congress ratified the 3rd Geneva Convention and made it law). They can use these techniques as long as they want.

4) This bill removes the right of habeas corpus. If you don't know what it means, look it up. This allows the Pentagon to black-hole indefinitely anyone they feel like doing it to, for reasons they don't have to explain.

Habeas corpus has been a part of American law since the founding of the United States. Our forefathers considered it a sacred right. Thomas Jefferson said: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." This bill takes a big, greasy shit on Thomas Jefferson.

The concluding opinion in Brown vs Allen: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint." This bill takes a hot, steamy shit on legal precedent.

So. You say that those of us who believe this bill takes away our rights are morons? Please, show us exactly how we are wrong.
2006-09-30 11:45:43
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6963|Wilmington, DE, US

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

We have three branches of government in the US.  All the morons that are worried about "the man" taking away their rights have no clue about how the government works.  The power in the US is not centralized enough.  Not only is the Federal power not concentrated, but you also have 50 states all sharing power.
It's cute that when agitated, so many of the Bush supporters in this forum resort to name-calling. Guys, if you are going to be mean, at least do it in a creative or witty way.

You say we have no clue about how the government works. Then you say the power in the US is not centralized "enough". Enough for what? Enough to take away rights? If that's not what you mean, please finish your statement.

If it IS what you mean - YOU'RE not paying attention. This bill DOES take away rights. It's very clear and simple. I challenge you to read the following and tell us EXACTLY how we're not understanding the situation correctly.

1) The bill does not define "hostilities", so the onus is on the Pentagon to decide what constituties "hostilities".

2) Therefore, they can declare ANYONE to be an "enemy combatant" if they feel like they are. There is no requirement of evidence.

3) Once they've detained someone, they can "interrogate" them. This bill effectively grants them the legal right to use interrogation techniques that the rest of the world considers torture, techniques that have been considered torture in America as per Congressional law for over 60 years (which was when Congress ratified the 3rd Geneva Convention and made it law). They can use these techniques as long as they want.

4) This bill removes the right of habeas corpus. If you don't know what it means, look it up. This allows the Pentagon to black-hole indefinitely anyone they feel like doing it to, for reasons they don't have to explain.

Habeas corpus has been a part of American law since the founding of the United States. Our forefathers considered it a sacred right. Thomas Jefferson said: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." This bill takes a big, greasy shit on Thomas Jefferson.

The concluding opinion in Brown vs Allen: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint." This bill takes a hot, steamy shit on legal precedent.

So. You say that those of us who believe this bill takes away our rights are morons? Please, show us exactly how we are wrong.
Thomas Jefferson was Unamerican.
2006-09-30 11:57:08
jonsimon
Member
+224|6749

Ikarti wrote:

Thomas Jefferson was Unamerican.
Obviously all those revolutionaries were Unamerican terrorists.
2006-09-30 12:04:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6854|132 and Bush

Anyone have a direct link to the bill, I'm still looking. I don't want a page that just has peoples take on certain parts of it. Obviously that's what some people have limited themselves to (on both stances). Copy and paste never educated anyone. Please link us, Thanks.

BTW I did google but like I said I can't find the whole Bill.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-09-30 12:18:44
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6963|Wilmington, DE, US

Kmarion wrote:

Anyone have a direct link to the bill, I'm still looking. I don't want a page that just has peoples take on certain parts of it. Obviously that's what some people have limited themselves to (on both stances). Copy and paste never educated anyone. Please link us, Thanks.

BTW I did google but like I said I can't find the whole Bill.
PDF is linked on the original post I believe.
2006-09-30 13:26:04
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6754|Los Angeles

Kmarion wrote:

Anyone have a direct link to the bill, I'm still looking. I don't want a page that just has peoples take on certain parts of it. Obviously that's what some people have limited themselves to (on both stances). Copy and paste never educated anyone. Please link us, Thanks.

BTW I did google but like I said I can't find the whole Bill.
The PDF link has been working since the original post, so I don't understand where this is coming from, nor why you've had to ask three times for links.

The link to online text was temporary, but I changed it almost 24 hours ago to explain how to go to the correct site and search for the bill.

Regardless - is it seriously that difficult to figure out where to find it? It's a bill passed by the House and the Senate. You go to the House web site. You go to the Senate web site. Common sense.

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

You can read the full text of the bill by searching for bill # 6166 here or download the PDF here

Last edited by The_Shipbuilder (Yesterday 15:22:43)
2006-09-30 14:02:53
PHPR Hunter
Member
+4|6792

weamo8 wrote:

What does FTW stand for?
From the Wilderness
2006-09-30 14:42:57
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|6909|United States of America

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

We have three branches of government in the US.  All the morons that are worried about "the man" taking away their rights have no clue about how the government works.  The power in the US is not centralized enough.  Not only is the Federal power not concentrated, but you also have 50 states all sharing power.
It's cute that when agitated, so many of the Bush supporters in this forum resort to name-calling. Guys, if you are going to be mean, at least do it in a creative or witty way.

You say we have no clue about how the government works. Then you say the power in the US is not centralized "enough". Enough for what? Enough to take away rights? If that's not what you mean, please finish your statement.

If it IS what you mean - YOU'RE not paying attention. This bill DOES take away rights. It's very clear and simple. I challenge you to read the following and tell us EXACTLY how we're not understanding the situation correctly.

1) The bill does not define "hostilities", so the onus is on the Pentagon to decide what constituties "hostilities".

2) Therefore, they can declare ANYONE to be an "enemy combatant" if they feel like they are. There is no requirement of evidence.

3) Once they've detained someone, they can "interrogate" them. This bill effectively grants them the legal right to use interrogation techniques that the rest of the world considers torture, techniques that have been considered torture in America as per Congressional law for over 60 years (which was when Congress ratified the 3rd Geneva Convention and made it law). They can use these techniques as long as they want.

4) This bill removes the right of habeas corpus. If you don't know what it means, look it up. This allows the Pentagon to black-hole indefinitely anyone they feel like doing it to, for reasons they don't have to explain.

Habeas corpus has been a part of American law since the founding of the United States. Our forefathers considered it a sacred right. Thomas Jefferson said: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." This bill takes a big, greasy shit on Thomas Jefferson.

The concluding opinion in Brown vs Allen: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint." This bill takes a hot, steamy shit on legal precedent.

So. You say that those of us who believe this bill takes away our rights are morons? Please, show us exactly how we are wrong.
OK, tell me what rights have been taken away from me????  What am I doing now that I will no longer be able to do because of this bill????????  Exactly, now STFU you stupid ASSHAT.
2006-09-30 14:43:59
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7015

Major_Spittle wrote:

OK, tell me what rights have been taken away from me????  What am I doing now that I will no longer be able to do because of this bill????????  Exactly, now STFU you stupid ASSHAT.
Yup.
2006-09-30 15:11:23
jonsimon
Member
+224|6749

Major_Spittle wrote:

OK, tell me what rights have been taken away from me????  What am I doing now that I will no longer be able to do because of this bill????????  Exactly, now STFU you stupid ASSHAT.
You personally? Perhaps none. But people in general? Right to trial, right to free speech, miranda rights, and persuit of happiness.

Remember, Hitler started with the communists and moved slowly from there.
2006-09-30 15:16:37
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6963|Wilmington, DE, US
Oh no, the entitled right wingers aren't affected, why should they care? Great attitude.
2006-09-30 15:18:10
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7015

Ikarti wrote:

Oh no, the entitled right wingers aren't affected, why should they care? Great attitude.
Entitled right wingers?
2006-09-30 15:53:55
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6754|Los Angeles

jonsimon wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

OK, tell me what rights have been taken away from me????  What am I doing now that I will no longer be able to do because of this bill????????  Exactly, now STFU you stupid ASSHAT.
You personally? Perhaps none. But people in general? Right to trial, right to free speech, miranda rights, and persuit of happiness.
Spittle,

You no longer have the right to challenge your wrongful detainment/imprisonment/interrogation by fair trial when you are wrongfully accused as hostile.

Just because you're not likely to have ever needed to use that right doesn't matter. That right is gone.

By the way, we love the eight question marks in a row, the "STFU" and the namecalling, keep it up. What's next - are you gonna threaten to hold your breath? Temper tantrum if we don't buy you a lollipop?

 

Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard