Way OT and political, too

Page 11 of 16  
CC wrote:

Ummm, actually it was *only* calls from the US to an overseas number that had been identified as linked to terrorists. It always amuses me when the left was bleating about this loss of "privacy" when many of those people so bleating have no qualms about loudly carrying on cell phone conversations in public regardless of how personal the subject.
In this case, you lost zero rights as opposed to the rights that the current administration is no kidding taking away: The rights of contract law in which a judge can set aside a contract and force a lender to alter the *principal* amount of a loan. Any idea how hard it would be to get a mortgage in the future if this happens? (Good news is that even the Senate wasn't stupid enough to go along with this and defeated it today 51-45 -- but that 45 is scary).
The right to make whatever your employer thinks you are worth. Right now, it's bank CEO's and employees. The administration has said that it also wants to impose the same kinds of rules on companies that have not taken federal money. Once they decide this for corporate officers, what's to stop them from deciding what *you* are supposed to be making?
The administration has made no bones about looking at ways to abridge the second amendment and take away the right to keep and bear arms.
If you are concerned about loss of privacy in cell phone or internet communications, I would think you would really be concerned about loss of privacy with the proposed health care database in which the fed will have all of your health care records in their files.

So then you are extremely outraged by the recently released Department of Homeland Security memos that identified people who actually support a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution as potential extremists? And the extremist lexicon they just released that identifies those who support federalism as extremists but fails to mention Islamic fundamentalists? You are sufficiently outraged to demand that Napolitano resign?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You do know this exists in current bankruptcy law? That mortgages on personal residences are an exception? And that the defeated bill in the Senate merely removed that exception? -- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

I remember discovering that some provisions of the "Patriot Act" that had people up in arms had been signed into law by Nixon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Nuf said.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CC wrote:

Messiah.
The right to be an activist the first time in my life on April 15 and then be marginalized not only by the Messiah and his Administration, the Drive By Media, The Liberals, The Leader of Congress...
The right to work hard and earn every penny I deserve and then have to give it to a Government that's out of control!!
The right to watch the culture I grew up with and love be smeared and diminished by your Walk on Water Leader and his Party.
The right to watch Judges make decisions not based on the Constitution but emotional liberal ideals.
The right to watch my children get strapped with outrageous debt!
The right to watch my right to bare arms disappear.
The right to watch the Chosen One travel to other countries and trash our values and culture.
The right to be a Capitalist
I could think of 100 other rights I'm about to lose because of a rank immature amateur renting the White House for 4 years. Lets hope its only 4 years.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
evodawg wrote: <SNIP>

The BASTARD! I knew he want to pillage my right to bear arms, but now I have to wear long-sleeved shirts too!!!!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

pants to wade through all the bull shit that's coming down the pike.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
evodawg wrote:

Those aren't rights you are loosing, they are rights you are gaining.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"evodawg" wrote:

<snip a litney of gov't services evodawg will accept but just does not want to pay for them.>
If the world is to survive, it requires organized societies.
To have organized societies requires government.
Government costs money, in the USA, some where around 35%-38% of GDP, same as it was in the late 40's when I heard this same rhetoric as a kid growing up.
Other countries either have similar or higher rates.
So basically, sit down, bitch for a while, it's the American way, then shut up and write out the check, mail it and have a beer.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

up the ass like the rest of the sheep. Cut Government spending instead of expanding it, you ignorant pinhead... Was that clear enough?
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"evodawg" wrote:

Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

And if any king had imposed taxes at that level he'd have been overthrown.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There was no "domestic" wiretapping - except by accident. All tapped communication involved at least one foreign subject.
The first instances of intercepting enemy electronic communications took place during the Second War of Independence when both the Union and the Confederacy tapped into their adversaries telegraph lines - without warrants, I might add. Such surveillance continues to the present day with the heyday during the times when we cracked the Japanese "Purple Code" and the Brits at Benchely Park deciphered the Enigma machine. We didn't need warrants to listen in to the Japanese fleet traffic and the British didn't require a QC warrant to follow the German submarine fleet.
The Left and the Right talk past each other: The Left sees all the issues as crimes and constitution. The Right sees the issues as war problems. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments deal with "crimes" as in "In all criminal proceedings..." The Left asserts that detainees and everybody else are entitled to constitutional protections.
The Right sees things through the president's Article II powers. The detainees at Gitmo, according to the Right, are not criminals - they have committed no crimes and are not charged with crimes. As such, they are not entitled to lawyers, courts, witnesses on their behalf, indictment by a grand jury, speedy trials, and all the other constitutional privileges we give to criminals. For example, we incarcerate people all the time who are not "criminals:" Civil contempt, juveniles, illegal aliens, contagious disease carriers, and more. None are constitutionally entitled to a trial, lawyers, compulsory process for witnesses, avoidance of self-incrimination, and the like.
During WW2, several hundred thousand captured German and Italian prisoners were housed on US soil (Texas alone had over 100 POW camps). Of these hundreds of thousands of prisoners, many were U.S. citizens (usually dual citizenship). Not one got access to our courts. Not one got legal representation. Why? Because they were not criminals.
I'm not saying the good folks at Gitmo are POWs, far from it*. I am only illustrating that there are parallel tracks of justice: one for criminals and one for events arising under the rules of war. These tracks are NOT the same and, from legal perspectives, are treated differently, with different rules by different people.
------- * The people at Gitmo are "unlawful enemy combatants" in the same category as spies, guerrillas, saboteurs, fifth-columnists, etc. Under the customary rules of war, they can be summarily executed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The 5th amendment starts "No person shall..." so you'd think it applies to more than just criminals. One of the independent clauses continues " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." No crime required.

All subject to habius and judicial review, no?

Who says they are "unlawful enemy combatants"? Regardless, they are entitled to judicial process under the Geneva Convention, which covers all persons in an occupied country or combat zone, just solely combatants. You're right, it does not have to be the same process as US citizens. Except for a few, we have failed to provide them any judicial process.
No, they no longer can be summarily executed. They need at least a drumhead court martial.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<SNIP>

The U.S. government asserts this because they: a) Engaged in combat upon our civilians and our military troops, and b) Did so with meeting any of the GC qualifications to be considered a protected class of military POW: They didn't wear identifiable uniforms being the most obvious breach.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. The only element of the GC that applies to them is that there has to be a formal finding of their status. Once they have been identified as not being a member of any of the classes protected by the GCs that we've signed (civilian refugees, uniformed military, POWs, etc.) we have NO legal obligation to them under the GCs nor do they have any right or claims upon us under the GCs. You might actually try reading the GCs to see how this works. As a point of interest, Reagan properly refused to sign additional later GCs that *would* have protected non-uniformed, non-identifiable combatants.
This is a prime example of why its impossible to have a reasoned discussion with the Bush-haters. They invent rights that never existed, fabricate spurious legal obligations, and generally make it up as they go along - much like they do when interpreting the US Constitution. In actual fact, there are a number of good arguments to be made for extending some level of civil rights to unlawful combatants, but legality is one of them.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. There have been formal military tribunals in GTMO with counsel present to act exclusively in defense of the accused. This is not something your arch-nemesis W invented. Military tribunals in such circumstances have a long and studied history in the United States. Again, a history book might be in order. Note that I'm not saying I love this as a way to handle the problem, merely that it is lawful and has precedent.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

No, they did not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You and Mark drink from the same well?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

I drink from the cup of knowledge. Don't know about Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Except some of them were not, they were shopped to the U.S. by Afghan warlords looking to collect rewards for Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters and said warlords' motivation was getting paid, that and maybe settling a personal or tribal grudge too. Many residents of Gitmo are without question rat-bastard terrorists and guerillas, and some were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and were held for years even when their captors had long-since figured that out. Legalities aside, when did we decide that simple human decency was something we no longer cared about?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have never said anything on this or other groups to indicate my opinion of Bush. You are jumping to conclusions. -- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.