 Good Special Comment |
  |
| Good Special Comment |
 Oct 19 2006, 09:59 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Italian. Yes. Group: Members Posts: 767 Joined: 22-February 06 From: - Member No.: 18  |
--------------------  |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 19 2006, 10:55 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Admin Posts: 6,906 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9 |
Damn. Very powerful. Very nice.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Oct 19 2006, 11:00 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 Let's Bother Snape!!! Group: Members Posts: 1,598 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Albuquerque, NM Member No.: 10 |
TLDR
--------------------  |
|
|
|
|
Oct 19 2006, 11:28 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 10,620 Joined: 23-February 06 From: Houston, TX Member No.: 48 |
geez...
guy compares bush to internment of japanese forty years ago? heheh also nice flair for the dramatic "we're giving bush a blank check, cashed against our freedom!!" 
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 19 2006, 11:41 PM
Post
#5
|
|
  Group: Agents Posts: 4,026 Joined: 23-February 06 From: lu-bok Member No.: 41 |
QUOTE (impala454 @ Oct 20 2006, 12:28 AM)  geez... guy compares bush to internment of japanese forty years ago? heheh also nice flair for the dramatic "we're giving bush a blank check, cashed against our freedom!!" shit. i only tossed in $1.05 -------------------- 32-bit whore
   |
|
|
|
|
Oct 19 2006, 11:43 PM
Post
#6
|
|
 Why so serious? Group: Global Moderators Posts: 5,286 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Fate, TX Member No.: 4 |
QUOTE (Spectatrix @ Oct 19 2006, 11:55 PM) Damn. Very powerful. Very nice. I agree 100%. Excellent segment. -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Oct 20 2006, 12:29 AM
Post
#7
|
|
 Prize? Group: Members Posts: 302 Joined: 16-October 06 Member No.: 343 |
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which this new legislation finds the power FROM THE SUPREME COURT to enact the law
QUOTE CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioners, a citizen-detainee and his father, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered the petition dismissed, finding that the citizen-detainee's detention was legally authorized and that he was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant label. Certiorari was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in a plurality opinion (notice that this is a plurality opinion not a majority, meaning that only a larger portion of the court agreed with the decision... not over half as would be a MAJORITY opinion). OVERVIEW: The citizen-detainee was born in the United States, detained in Afghanistan during the United States' military action against the Taliban regime, and transferred to the United States. Pursuant to a government official's declaration, the Government contended that the citizen-detainee was an enemy combatant. Aside from unspecified screening processes and military interrogations, the citizen-detainee received no due process. The Court determined that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 115 Stat. 224, authorized the detention of individuals in the citizen-detainee's circumstances and that the AUMF satisfied 18 U.S.C.S. § 4001(a)'s requirement that a detention be "pursuant to an Act of Congress." However, under the Mathews analysis, the Court determined that the citizen-detainee, seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant, was entitled to receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. The Court rejected the Government's assertion that separation of powers principles mandated a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances. OUTCOME: The Supreme Court vacated the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. CORE TERMS: detention, enemy, combatant, military, plurality, suspension, detain, detained, authorization, imprisonment, writ of habeas corpus, captured, wartime, terrorist, detainee, due process, Act of Congress, national security, authorize, prisoners of war, emergency, detaining, hostility, prisoner, capture, treason, habeas corpus, war powers, rebellion, invasion The Actual Statute: 109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006) Despite this mans obvious passion for what he views as a horrible man doing a horrible thing, one should look at the actual language of the statute being enacted as well as the supreme court case that lead to the bill in question. You may find the supreme court ruling wrong (which i wouldn't do lightly since the magnitude of the question fitted with the massive knowledge of the law by the justices leads me to believe they thought long an hard about it.) and thus you would find the statute wrong. BUT you can also find the supreme court ruling CONSTITUTIONAL and still hold the statute wrong. GOOD news is that the supreme court still gets to look at this statute and rule on its constitutionality, so if this trully is against the constitution... it can be rectified. Anyhoo, im not gonna try to break down the statutes for you (god knows i have enough case briefs and statutes to read in law school) but here is the law in question... have fun. .... or trust this guy is smarter than you and have him make up your mind, either way 
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 20 2006, 12:59 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
CHEE CHEE Group: Members Posts: 5,026 Joined: 23-February 06 From: trapped in the hoezone layer Member No.: 39 |
i had to skim through this thread because the topic title is annoying as all hell
-------------------- Little monkeys making money
Naked monkey looking funny Mighty males are strong and free Female monkey, not so lucky Rocking monkeys, funky monkeys Monkeys sticking other monkeys Monkeys wrong or monkeys right Mostly flexing monkey might |
|
|
|
|
Oct 20 2006, 11:08 AM
Post
#9
|
|
 From Atlantis to Interzone Group: Global Moderators Posts: 2,512 Joined: 23-February 06 From: Somewhere in space and time Member No.: 65 |
QUOTE (Divergent Reality @ Oct 20 2006, 12:41 AM) shit. i only tossed in $1.05 Freedom costs a buck o five. -------------------- QUOTE (Spectatrix @ Oct 13 2006, 09:51 PM) Holy shit, pebkac, you're awesome! "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Theodor Seuss Geisel (AKA Dr. Seuss) "An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all." - Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 02:01 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Italian. Yes. Group: Members Posts: 767 Joined: 22-February 06 From: - Member No.: 18 |
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 03:08 PM
Post
#11
|
|
 Do they ignore parts of reality? Group: Moderators Posts: 2,935 Joined: 23-February 06 From: South Overton!!! Member No.: 46 |
Good commentary on what has happened to america since this president has taken office. He is by far one of the worst president's in U.S. History. It is semi-fascist.
-------------------- A psychotic world we live in. The madmen are in power. How long have we known this? Faced this? And--how many of us do know it? Perhaps if you know you are insane then you are not insane. Or you are becoming sane, finally. Waking up. I suppose only a few are aware of all this. Isolated persons here and there. But the broad masses... what do they think? All these hundreds of thousands in this city, here. Do they imagine that they live in a sane world? Or do they guess, glimpse, the truth...?
-Philip K. Dick |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 03:57 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Group: Admin Posts: 6,906 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Austin Member No.: 9 |
QUOTE (Timbo @ Oct 25 2006, 02:01 AM) Reminds me of an episode of ZeFrank's The Show: http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/08/081006.html -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 04:13 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Prize? Group: Members Posts: 302 Joined: 16-October 06 Member No.: 343 |
I always love the "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." quote people try to use to justify thier argument. When the argument can very well be what do you consider "liberty"? One might consider safety and well being as a liberty. One might view the pursuit of criminals before they hurt us as a liberty "we" enjoy.
Throwing a quote or hypothetical out there is one thing, proving that something is actually wrong in a sense of precedence or the constitution is a little harder to do. SAYING someone is facist is much easier than proving how a person is currently and continually acting against the rules and law of the republic he is leading. Dont like policy, thats part of a democratic right to disagree. That democracy taking part in a policy that some of the citizens of the country simply don't like... hardly a violation of the democracy. The country is a democracy for a reason, checks and balances. If THE CONGRESS and THE EXECUTIVE branch enact something that is unconstitutional (happens many a time in our past over less than horrible things) then it is THE JUDICIAL branches job to overturn it. To say that a BILL is facist when it has went through TWO branches of the government, and it was passed off of a previous ruling that the THIRD branch made, seems.... far fetched. Especially since it can still be reviewed... and then re-reviewed if need be... or reppealed by congress... or amended to the constitution. But by all means, hate the bill (assuming you take the time to read it), hell that is your right. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 05:22 PM
Post
#14
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 5,275 Joined: 22-February 06 Member No.: 2 |
The chances of being killed by terrorism are a whole hell of a lot less than being struck by lightening.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 05:52 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Prize? Group: Members Posts: 302 Joined: 16-October 06 Member No.: 343 |
QUOTE (Overlord @ Oct 25 2006, 06:22 PM) The chances of being killed by terrorism are a whole hell of a lot less than being struck by lightening. so are the chances of being killed in a school shooting... and a plane crash.. oh oh, and in a stingray attack I dont know if you had a point, but figured i'd help give ya some other equally useless "chances of being killed by" stuff |
|
|
|
|
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th August 2026 - 09:01 AM |
