So I should be allowed to start a charity and give the money to suicide bombers?sergeriver wrote:
Do you really need to ask?
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-07-20 17:08:28)
It's written so that there's absolutely no way to tell what the hell that means, which is the problem. I agree it should (and possible is) only be for people who join a sponsor-a-suicide-bomber scheme, but it could readily be argued that it covers a whole range of other unwiting methods of supporting anti-war groups and terrorists through providing normal goods and services to them.usmarine2005 wrote:
Not defending him, just trying to understand something...ATG wrote:
Get's pretty tiring defending that asswipe Marine, come over to the dark side and embrace the hatred.usmarine2005 wrote:
No I think if I was using airline money and donating it to Hamas then they could seize my property. That is the way I see it working.
"to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; "
Is that so bad?
Things are not black and white only. You should be concerned about the grey areas. Would you like this guy to decide if you are in the grey areas?usmarine2005 wrote:
So I should be allowed to start a charity and give the money to suicide bombers?sergeriver wrote:
Do you really need to ask?
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-07-20 17:13:20)
I agree, but how can you possibly mention every single situation?sergeriver wrote:
Things are not black and white. You should be concerned about the grey areas. Would you like this guy to decide if you are in the grey areas?usmarine2005 wrote:
So I should be allowed to start a charity and give the money to suicide bombers?sergeriver wrote:
Do you really need to ask?
It doesn't matter what we think = Point. The risk assessment lacks a justice system to determine if the accusations are valid. Again the discretion lies in the hands of a few and goes unchallenged. Absolute power corrupts.usmarine2005 wrote:
Not defending him, just trying to understand something...ATG wrote:
Get's pretty tiring defending that asswipe Marine, come over to the dark side and embrace the hatred.usmarine2005 wrote:
No I think if I was using airline money and donating it to Hamas then they could seize my property. That is the way I see it working.
"to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; "
Is that so bad?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That's the problem with this, I don't know how to call it, executive order whatever. Almost every situation, involving any citizen, could be considered undermining efforts. Who will decide who the good guys and the bad guys are? Him? Good luck with that.usmarine2005 wrote:
I agree, but how can you possibly mention every single situation?sergeriver wrote:
Things are not black and white. You should be concerned about the grey areas. Would you like this guy to decide if you are in the grey areas?usmarine2005 wrote:
So I should be allowed to start a charity and give the money to suicide bombers?
We have judges giving repeated child molesters very light sentences. So yes, who is to judge? Good question. How about the people elected to do so?sergeriver wrote:
That's the problem with this, I don't know how to call it, executive order whatever. Almost every situation, involving any citizen, could be considered undermining efforts. Who will decide who the good guys and the bad guys are? Him? Good luck with that.usmarine2005 wrote:
I agree, but how can you possibly mention every single situation?sergeriver wrote:
Things are not black and white. You should be concerned about the grey areas. Would you like this guy to decide if you are in the grey areas?
What people do you mean? The Congress? Bush? Are you voiding the judicial branch?usmarine2005 wrote:
We have judges giving repeated child molesters very light sentences. So yes, who is to judge? Good question. How about the people elected to do so?sergeriver wrote:
That's the problem with this, I don't know how to call it, executive order whatever. Almost every situation, involving any citizen, could be considered undermining efforts. Who will decide who the good guys and the bad guys are? Him? Good luck with that.usmarine2005 wrote:
I agree, but how can you possibly mention every single situation?
Shit I don't know. All I hear from everyone is blah blah Bush, well give me a solution? How should people who give money to suicide bombers for example be dealt with? Who makes the call?sergeriver wrote:
What people do you mean? The Congress? Bush? Are you voiding the judicial branch?usmarine2005 wrote:
We have judges giving repeated child molesters very light sentences. So yes, who is to judge? Good question. How about the people elected to do so?sergeriver wrote:
That's the problem with this, I don't know how to call it, executive order whatever. Almost every situation, involving any citizen, could be considered undermining efforts. Who will decide who the good guys and the bad guys are? Him? Good luck with that.
Well, that's another good questioon mate. But this is certainly not the way to do that. This is putting everyone in the same bag. And believe me, you are included. This is a violation to your rights as citizen, and you should be protesting like a Muslim extremist over the Danish cartoons.usmarine2005 wrote:
Shit I don't know. All I hear from everyone is blah blah Bush, well give me a solution? How should people who give money to suicide bombers for example be dealt with? Who makes the call?sergeriver wrote:
What people do you mean? The Congress? Bush? Are you voiding the judicial branch?usmarine2005 wrote:
We have judges giving repeated child molesters very light sentences. So yes, who is to judge? Good question. How about the people elected to do so?
Which rights are violated? And who should be left in the "bag?"sergeriver wrote:
Well, that's another good questioon mate. But this is certainly not the way to do that. This is putting everyone in the same bag. And believe me, you are included. This is a violation to your rights as citizen, and you should be protesting like a Muslim extremist over the Danish cartoons.usmarine2005 wrote:
Shit I don't know. All I hear from everyone is blah blah Bush, well give me a solution? How should people who give money to suicide bombers for example be dealt with? Who makes the call?sergeriver wrote:
What people do you mean? The Congress? Bush? Are you voiding the judicial branch?
They were not elected for that role. That belongs to the Judicial system.usmarine2005 wrote:
We have judges giving repeated child molesters very light sentences. So yes, who is to judge? Good question. How about the people elected to do so?sergeriver wrote:
That's the problem with this, I don't know how to call it, executive order whatever. Almost every situation, involving any citizen, could be considered undermining efforts. Who will decide who the good guys and the bad guys are? Him? Good luck with that.usmarine2005 wrote:
I agree, but how can you possibly mention every single situation?
The most questionable part of this is: "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people". So you mean to tell me it is acceptable to give up your liberties because the government deems your actions do not support political reform in a foreign land? Since there is no interpretation this could be as vague as an American citizen being punished for buying Saudi oil instead of Iraqi. Or the more obvious, protesters being punished for not supporting Al-Maliki. We don't force our citizens to endorse political reform within our own nation. Why would we implement a law that made us support it in another?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."usmarine2005 wrote:
Which rights are violated? And who should be left in the "bag?"sergeriver wrote:
Well, that's another good questioon mate. But this is certainly not the way to do that. This is putting everyone in the same bag. And believe me, you are included. This is a violation to your rights as citizen, and you should be protesting like a Muslim extremist over the Danish cartoons.usmarine2005 wrote:
Shit I don't know. All I hear from everyone is blah blah Bush, well give me a solution? How should people who give money to suicide bombers for example be dealt with? Who makes the call?
That one
I don't know, the right of your property not being confiscated based on false evidence maybe. In the bag of bad guys? The bad guys only.usmarine2005 wrote:
Which rights are violated? And who should be left in the "bag?"sergeriver wrote:
Well, that's another good questioon mate. But this is certainly not the way to do that. This is putting everyone in the same bag. And believe me, you are included. This is a violation to your rights as citizen, and you should be protesting like a Muslim extremist over the Danish cartoons.usmarine2005 wrote:
Shit I don't know. All I hear from everyone is blah blah Bush, well give me a solution? How should people who give money to suicide bombers for example be dealt with? Who makes the call?
If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. I'm sorry, but I do not see the big deal. Maybe something will change that, but until then...meh, I will just live my life the way I have been. I am sure executive orders we don't even know about from the past are just as bad or worse.
Even coming from you, I can't believe it. You can't say that. Don't you realize how serious this is? The man is one step away from martial law. I think it's very dangerous to threaten the civil liberties of the citizens of your own country. He lost any touch with reality long time ago.usmarine2005 wrote:
If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. I'm sorry, but I do not see the big deal. Maybe something will change that, but until then...meh, I will just live my life the way I have been. I am sure executive orders we don't even know about from the past are just as bad or worse.
He is gone soon anyway.sergeriver wrote:
Even coming from you, I can't believe it. You can't say that. Don't you realize how serious this is? The man is one step away from martial law. I think it's very dangerous to threaten the civil liberties of the citizens of your own country. He lost any touch with reality long time ago.usmarine2005 wrote:
If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. I'm sorry, but I do not see the big deal. Maybe something will change that, but until then...meh, I will just live my life the way I have been. I am sure executive orders we don't even know about from the past are just as bad or worse.
And remember, we had Presidents keep people from voting because of gender, or keep them out of certain jobs and schools because of race, and put them in camps because of race. Let's get things in perspective for a second.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-07-20 17:50:53)
Either way, he can't sign such an executive order. It's shameful for the history of the US Democracy. And I say it with the respect and admiration I have for the Democracy of your country.usmarine2005 wrote:
He is gone soon anyway.sergeriver wrote:
Even coming from you, I can't believe it. You can't say that. Don't you realize how serious this is? The man is one step away from martial law. I think it's very dangerous to threaten the civil liberties of the citizens of your own country. He lost any touch with reality long time ago.usmarine2005 wrote:
If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. I'm sorry, but I do not see the big deal. Maybe something will change that, but until then...meh, I will just live my life the way I have been. I am sure executive orders we don't even know about from the past are just as bad or worse.
Yea but the next batch doesn't look too promising.. ..lol.usmarine2005 wrote:
He is gone soon anyway.sergeriver wrote:
Even coming from you, I can't believe it. You can't say that. Don't you realize how serious this is? The man is one step away from martial law. I think it's very dangerous to threaten the civil liberties of the citizens of your own country. He lost any touch with reality long time ago.usmarine2005 wrote:
If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. I'm sorry, but I do not see the big deal. Maybe something will change that, but until then...meh, I will just live my life the way I have been. I am sure executive orders we don't even know about from the past are just as bad or worse.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And remember, we had Presidents keep people from voting because of gender, or keep them out of certain jobs and schools because of race, and put them in camps because of race. Let's get things in perspective for a second.
In the US in these times?usmarine2005 wrote:
And remember, we had Presidents keep people from voting because of gender, or keep them out of certain jobs and schools because of race, and put them in camps because of race. Let's get things in perspective for a second.
No...but it happens. Just one more in the long line of history.sergeriver wrote:
In the US in these times?usmarine2005 wrote:
And remember, we had Presidents keep people from voting because of gender, or keep them out of certain jobs and schools because of race, and put them in camps because of race. Let's get things in perspective for a second.
There is no way in hell Americans should be giving up the Judicial branch to support economic and political reform in another country. As a conservative with Republican clearly printed on my voters card even I can see the transparent insanity of this.sergeriver wrote:
Either way, he can't sign such an executive order. It's shameful for the history of the US Democracy. And I say it with the respect and admiration I have for the Democracy of your country.usmarine2005 wrote:
He is gone soon anyway.sergeriver wrote:
Even coming from you, I can't believe it. You can't say that. Don't you realize how serious this is? The man is one step away from martial law. I think it's very dangerous to threaten the civil liberties of the citizens of your own country. He lost any touch with reality long time ago.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I don't get why you don't seem to care, even when you don't like him.usmarine2005 wrote:
No...but it happens. Just one more in the long line of history.sergeriver wrote:
In the US in these times?usmarine2005 wrote:
And remember, we had Presidents keep people from voting because of gender, or keep them out of certain jobs and schools because of race, and put them in camps because of race. Let's get things in perspective for a second.
/winGorillaTicTacs wrote:
Quick! Look! Britney Spears is in public with no underwear!
Constitutional crises looms, America yawns, changes channel.
The 29%ers will talk some more about 9/11, yada yada yada, Bush is under attack by liberal loons, yada yada yada. Everyone else needs to get a gun or a passport. I'll stay here in the middle of a 3rd-world mafia haven where its safe.