Pretty disturbing story

[Beaumont]

That is humorous coming from a liberal Democrat. You guys constantly defended the actions of the Soviet Union and consistently took their side against ours. I was speechless when I got to college back in the early 1980s and listened to Dems talk so negatively about our gobment but didnt ever criticize Russia. It was like living in Bizzaro World. I knew then that liberals hated this country and would eventually lead to our demise.

 

 

Say What Willis? are you talking about? Do you really live in your own little world in your head?

[Zeke 1982]

Captured behind our lines = in the US, where he was born and was a citizen.

 

Enemy combatant? Who did he attack? Who was he going to attack? Shouldn't this be proven?

 

Spain, no one combats it because we all believe that it is more likely than not true. But that does not excuse the government from having to prove the charges ...

 

I guess I should just accept that Spain and his group will accept anything that the GWB administration says at face value ... I mean, they have never been wrong or deceptive about anything involving alleged threats against the US ... I mean like Iraq, WMD and such ...

 

 

Yea they were wrong about wmd. He never had them. Every administration for the past twenty years was wrong. Or maybe since we gave him a years notice before we attacked he got rid of them. Of course the years notice was because we had to convince libs that this was necessary.

[spain]

Captured behind our lines = in the US, where he was born and was a citizen.

 

Enemy combatant? Who did he attack? Who was he going to attack? Shouldn't this be proven?

 

Spain, no one combats it because we all believe that it is more likely than not true. But that does not excuse the government from having to prove the charges ...

 

I guess I should just accept that Spain and his group will accept anything that the GWB administration says at face value ... I mean, they have never been wrong or deceptive about anything involving alleged threats against the US ... I mean like Iraq, WMD and such ...

 

 

So, let me get this straight. You dont deny the allegations because they are true. But you dont believe the allegations because Bush says they are true. Gotcha.

 

We are at war, well, at least Islamofacists are at war with us. This dude had just come back from one of their terrorist training camps with instructions on attacking us. I guess in your world we need to actually wait until he blows up a building before we take action.

[Zeke 1982]

So, let me get this straight. You dont deny the allegations because they are true. But you dont believe the allegations because Bush says they are true. Gotcha.

 

We are at war, well, at least Islamofacists are at war with us. This dude had just come back from one of their terrorist training camps with instructions on attacking us. I guess in your world we need to actually wait until he blows up a building before we take action.

 

Bingo...then they will say Bush did not do enough to stop the attack.

[Beaumont]

So, let me get this straight. You dont deny the allegations because they are true. But you dont believe the allegations because Bush says they are true. Gotcha.

 

We are at war, well, at least Islamofacists are at war with us. This dude had just come back from one of their terrorist training camps with instructions on attacking us. I guess in your world we need to actually wait until he blows up a building before we take action.

 

 

I did not say they were not true. I said after arresting him they have to charge him with a crime and then prove it. Once they prove it, then frag him. Dont frag him because Ashcroft says he is an enemy combatant. If you want to kill someone just because GWB's administration says he is an enemy combatant, then you would have been great at the Salem Witch Trials ...

 

Oh wait, at least those actually were trials ...

 

I am done here. I am again reminded why I stopped hanging in the 'gate ...

[dmarc117]

I did not say they were not true. I said after arresting him they have to charge him with a crime and then prove it. Once they prove it, then frag him. Dont frag him because Ashcroft says he is an enemy combatant. If you want to kill someone just because GWB's administration says he is an enemy combatant, then you would have been great at the Salem Witch Trials ...

 

Oh wait, at least those actually were trials ...

 

I am done here. I am again reminded why I stopped hanging in the 'gate ...

 

 

 

you will be missed

[detlef]

Ok Moron. Let's see you answer this question. Please tell me the plan of the dems to keep us safe? Please tell me their solution to Iran and NK? Please tell me if they will repeal our tax cuts. Please tell me the exact way they plan to secure the border. Please tell me the plan to win Iraq. A prize to you if you can answer any of these questions without attacking Bush. You are on the clock libs.

 

I don't pretend to know half the answers you are looking for. If you want to know how to cook something or manage a restaurant, I've got you covered. I do know BS when I see it and just because I'm not qualified to create National policy does not forbid me from pointing it out.

 

As far as tax cuts, I hate to break it to you but the money that <<not blaming Bush>> spent is going to have to come from somewhere. We can pretend that spending money we don't have endlessly will work out OK but my very conservative father (who despises <<don't blame Bush>>) taught me that it typically doesn't work out well. So anyone who promises that tax cuts will never be repealed is either pandering to you or is willing drive our country into the ground just to make a point. Perhaps there's another solution but anyone who promises that tax increases will never even be considered is showing themselves to be unfit for the job of running a country. They prefer stubborness (sorry staying the course) to logic, dogmatic policies to reason, and worse still they don't have sense enough to listen to experts.

 

I've made my point on Iraq before. It's going to be a doo doo fest whether we leave in a week, a year, or ten. The second we pull out, it goes straight to hell. The notion of simply cutting bait is an enormously nasty thought to even consider because it's going to be verrrry ugly. But since I don't see it ever getting any better, I don't see the point in the continued costs of being there. On a much, much smaller level we are often faced with situations that we'd love to avoid because we know it's going to suck. I think this is one of those things. Even if the "taking the fight to them" policy is what we can thank for the fact that there haven't been any domestic attaks, it's not as if we can afford to just do it forever.

[Zeke 1982]

I did not say they were not true. I said after arresting him they have to charge him with a crime and then prove it. Once they prove it, then frag him. Dont frag him because Ashcroft says he is an enemy combatant. If you want to kill someone just because GWB's administration says he is an enemy combatant, then you would have been great at the Salem Witch Trials ...

 

Oh wait, at least those actually were trials ...

 

I am done here. I am again reminded why I stopped hanging in the 'gate ...

 

One less lib appeaser to worry about. Good riddance Michael Moore.

[Zeke 1982]

I don't pretend to know half the answers you are looking for. If you want to know how to cook something or manage a restaurant, I've got you covered. I do know BS when I see it and just because I'm not qualified to create National policy does not forbid me from pointing it out.

 

As far as tax cuts, I hate to break it to you but the money that <<not blaming Bush>> spent is going to have to come from somewhere. We can pretend that spending money we don't have endlessly will work out OK but my very conservative father (who despises <<don't blame Bush>>) taught me that it typically doesn't work out well. So anyone who promises that tax cuts will never be repealed is either pandering to you or is willing drive our country into the ground just to make a point. Perhaps there's another solution but anyone who promises that tax increases will never even be considered is showing themselves to be unfit for the job of running a country. They prefer stubborness (sorry staying the course) to logic, dogmatic policies to reason, and worse still they don't have sense enough to listen to experts.

 

I've made my point on Iraq before. It's going to be a doo doo fest whether we leave in a week, a year, or ten. The second we pull out, it goes straight to hell. The notion of simply cutting bait is an enormously nasty thought to even consider because it's going to be verrrry ugly. But since I don't see it ever getting any better, I don't see the point in the continued costs of being there. On a much, much smaller level we are often faced with situations that we'd love to avoid because we know it's going to suck. I think this is one of those things. Even if the "taking the fight to them" policy is what we can thank for the fact that there haven't been any domestic attaks, it's not as if we can afford to just do it forever.

 

 

So even though we have record tax revenues and low unemployment we need to repeal the tax cuts?

[cre8tiff]

Ok Moron. Let's see you answer this question. Please tell me the plan of the dems to keep us safe? Please tell me their solution to Iran and NK?

 

 

Please tell me if they will repeal our tax cuts.

 

If the democrats stick to thier party line of fiscal responsibity, this is a possibility. I for one wouldn't mind this as I didn't mind it in 1990's when it resulted in the a budget surplus and security for my children in the future.

 

Here is an economist's view.

 

Please tell me the exact way they plan to secure the border.

 

Which border? US-Mexico, US-Canada, Iraq-Iran, Iraq-Syria, Afghanistan-Pakistan?

 

Democrats have tried on several occasions to better fund the existing border security infrastructure, but have been blocked.

 

 

Please tell me the plan to win Iraq.

 

We cannot win in Iraq. This is a trick question.

 

A prize to you if you can answer any of these questions without attacking Bush.

 

Thanks for the offer, but I don't want any signed nudie shots of Rush Limbaugh.

You are on the clock libs.

 

 

[detlef]

So even though we have record tax revenues and low unemployment we need to repeal the tax cuts?

 

Tell me that you didn't actually read my post and then come up with that conclusion. All I said, as I've said before, that anyone who promises that repealing tax cuts will never be considered is an idiot. I'm not a freaking economist, I don't pretend to be. If you ask me, I think the debt we took on was too much for the resulting effect on unemployment. Before when weigie was tracking the unemployment figures here in the Tailgate (and typically pointing out that they were waaaayyyy behind what Bush had promised I might add) the question was addressed as to the efficacy of the policy. Those on your side just kept pointing out that unemployment was going down and that was good enough. Those on my side questioned why you didn't even care that the numbers were lagging way behind the promised effect that plunging our nation into massive debt would have on them.

 

I offered this comparison. Let's say your wife complained that the house was cold, so you started a bonfire of $20 bills in the living room. She comes in and starts freaking out because you're burning a ton of money. If you follow the same argument that you did with unemployment, you say, "You told me to make the house warmer. Is it or is in not warmer? Yes? OK, thank you. Now go make me a pot pie."

 

Now, perhaps we can, in fact, service the debt without raising taxes. If so, that's great. But I just don't think its wise (and wisdom shouldn't be too much to ask from you government) to not ever consider options.

[cre8tiff]

So even though we have record tax revenues and low unemployment we need to repeal the tax cuts?

 

 

The record tax revenues have come from corporate taxes, especially massive profits from oil companies, among other things.

 

Since the oil companies basically pass that tax burden down to us, any tax savings we may have had were eaten up in higher energy costs.

 

[cre8tiff]

:crickets:

 

Man, posting facts on this board works better than Halon on a grease fire.

Edited October 12, 2006 by cre8tiff

[skins]

Spain's schtick is awesome and it is great how the followers are agreeing with it.

 

Spain, while I always appreciate yer humor, maybe you better stick with helping get online poker banned. So far, those you support have passed the law and if you keep supporting them, maybe enough people will vote Republican in November so they keep power and online poker can be a distant memory.

 

Thanks for helping get it banned--it was evil.

Edited October 12, 2006 by skins

[Squeegiebo]

The "conservatives" on this board would feel a lot more at home in the former Soviet Union ... where it truly was acceptable to lock up or execute enemies of the state without a trial and presentation of evidence ...

 

Perhaps we should start refering to "Komrade Spain" ...

 

Fortunately, at least some here on this board know that the freedoms America stand for are inalienable to all Americans, not to be withheld at the mere word of agents of the government without proof ...

 

 

 

Wurd.

[dmarc117]

Spain's schtick is awesome and it is great how the followers are agreeing with it.

 

Spain, while I always appreciate yer humor, maybe you better stick with helping get online poker banned. So far, those you support have passed the law and if you keep supporting them, maybe enough people will vote Republican in November so they keep power and online poker can be a distant memory.

 

Thanks for helping get it banned--it was evil.

 

 

 

wow....a response from foreskins without anything related to a man's nether region.....

[skins]

Asz, you and the TWIT TWINS® are making some great arguments. They are making you look like a man's nether region.

Edited October 12, 2006 by skins

[dmarc117]

Asz, you and the TWIT TWINS® are making some great arguments. They are making you look like a man's nether region.

 

get back in the middle of the circle please

[TimC]

:crickets:

 

 

Is now the time to say "but Clinton had a BJ?"

Edited October 12, 2006 by TimC

[Pope Flick]

I love how the Con responses are responding to things that are not written.

 

2 questions/examples:

 

why did the Rosenberg's, after leaking the secrets of the bomb to the Russians get more due process than Padilla? (They were tried, convicted and executed inside 18 months.)

 

why was the guy who was charged with treason yesterday given more due process than Padilla? Padilla had no weapons, and the guy who was charged with being an al-queda propagandist is potentially more dangerous than that Padilla clown as an english/arabic speaking editor who's responsibility it was to amke the recruitment videos which expands al-queda's base? Why is he being given more rights than Padilla?

 

In the end, it's not about them, it's about us. Charge Padilla with something, then throw away the key. But to use the power to imprison indiscriminately means you live in China, Iran, North Korea. Not here.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Pope Flick

[Azazello1313]

You guys are freaking unreal. Not a soul here is claiming that dude should be slapped on the wrist and sent on his way. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT HE AN EVIL MAN THAT SHOULD ROT IN HELL. I'd like to assume the government has some rather damming evidence on this guy or they wouldn't just lock up without trial. Assuming that is correct, would it kill them to actually charge the man with a crime?

 

This is not about how we should punish terrorists. This is about appropriate protocol for dealing with ALLEGED criminals. What is so limp wristed about arresting the guy, charging the guy, keeping him in a high security prison, trying the guy, and then punishing him if found guilty? WHAT GIVES US THE RIGHT TO OUST THE LIKES OF SADDAM IN THE NAME OF LIBERTY AND FREEDOM AND ALL THAT IF WE IGNORE THEM OURSELVES.

 

When we describe the atrocities of despots, without fail we mention the fact that they randomly executed people and imprisoned them without charges. This is precisely what you morons are advocating we do here.

 

You guys are a freaking disgrace

 

 

YOU say it's about dealing with (citizen) criminals, not terrorists. the problem is, this guy is both. that creates a pretty tricky legal, and ethical, situation. the competing interests are pretty huge, and pretty fundamental. whether you agree or disagree with their conclusions and methods, can you at least retreat from the partisan bickering perspective and try and see why the government would care first and foremost about extracting every ounce of intelligence they possibly can from this guy? and can you at least see why they would want to avoid the disclosure of the sort of highly sensitive intelligence they'd have to bring forward if they wanted to press their full case against padilla in a civilian court? can you really blame the government for doing everything they can within the law to deal with his detention first and foremost as a national security issue?

 

in any case, the government HAS indicted him on a fairly limited case, so most of this hand-wringing is moot at this point. the case is limited, one can presume, because of the aforementioned unwillingness to disclose vital intelligence. they had to craft an indictment they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that would result in serious criminal charges, and that they could prove in court with the least damage possible to our ongoing struggle with al qaeda.

[skins]

YOU say it's about dealing with (citizen) criminals, not terrorists. the problem is, this guy is both. that creates a pretty tricky legal, and ethical, situation. the competing interests are pretty huge, and pretty fundamental. whether you agree or disagree with their conclusions and methods, can you at least retreat from the partisan bickering perspective and try and see why the government would care first and foremost about extracting every ounce of intelligence they possibly can from this guy? and can you at least see why they would want to avoid the disclosure of the sort of highly sensitive intelligence they'd have to bring forward if they wanted to press their full case against padilla in a civilian court? can you really blame the government for doing everything they can within the law to deal with his detention first and foremost as a national security issue?

 

in any case, the government HAS indicted him on a fairly limited case, so most of this hand-wringing is moot at this point. the case is limited, one can presume, because of the aforementioned unwillingness to disclose vital intelligence. they had to craft an indictment they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that would result in serious criminal charges, and that they could prove in court with the least damage possible to our ongoing struggle with al qaeda.

 

 

Way to avoid the primary issue again. Are US citizens--even the most heinous--entitled to constitutional protections or not? It is a simple yes or no question. Answer it, chicken.

 

And if national security is yer only reason for discarding the Constitution, the Court can certainly seal much of what comes before it so that it never becomes public, so that is a red herring.

[dmarc117]

Way to avoid the primary issue again. Are US citizens--even the most heinous--entitled to constitutional protections or not? It is a simple yes or no question. Answer it, chicken.

 

And if national security is yer only reason for discarding the Constitution, the Court can certainly seal much of what comes before it so that it never becomes public, so that is a red herring.

 

 

 

no

[Strike]

Way to avoid the primary issue again. Are US citizens--even the most heinous--entitled to constitutional protections or not? It is a simple yes or no question. Answer it, chicken.

 

And if national security is yer only reason for discarding the Constitution, the Court can certainly seal much of what comes before it so that it never becomes public, so that is a red herring.

 

 

Not to get into the middle of such a civilized discussion, but just want to point out that it's NOT that simple and it's not a YES or NO question. Your constitutional protections are much more limited than they were 150 years ago due to laws and rulings that have happened since then. Certain constitutional protections are limited to begin with; for example you have a free speech right but can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater without risking arrest. So to paint it as a simple yes/no, black/white issue is unfair and if you expect people to respond in that manner then the potential to intelligently discuss this situation is lost.

[Azazello1313]

Way to avoid the primary issue again. Are US citizens--even the most heinous--entitled to constitutional protections or not? It is a simple yes or no question. Answer it, chicken.

 

generally, yes. in some instances, if they've taken up arms against the US, then no, and they may be treated as enemy combatants. whether that exception applied in padilla's case was obviously the subject of much legal wrangling, and obviously the government basically punted by indicting padilla in civilian court.

 

And if national security is yer only reason for discarding the Constitution, the Court can certainly seal much of what comes before it so that it never becomes public, so that is a red herring.

 

 

no it's not, not by a longshot. at the very minimum they have to make all of their info, and all of their witnesses, available to padilla and his lawyers. (and maybe you haven't noticed, but info in closed and classified court proceedings -- like, oh say, the libby grand jury -- has a pretty strong tendency to end up leaked) and of course, padilla's lawyers can then argue they need access to this or that witness or evidence in order to make a case.

 

anyway, if you don't think the government was treating padilla as an enemy combatant because of national security and intelligence, if that's a red herring as you say, then what exactly do YOU think was their motivation?