US guards battle Guantanamo inmates in wild fight

[Sarge]

Hmmmm. Guess there is no longer a need for fans and light fixtures for the inmates. Oh what torture :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060519/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_dc


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ten Guantanamo prisoners lured U.S. guards into a cell with a staged suicide attempt, then attacked them with light fixtures, fan blades and other improvised weapons while guards fired rubber balls and used a grenade launcher to subdue them, U.S. officials said on Friday.

The officials called Thursday's clash the most intense outbreak of violence at the jail for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since it opened in January 2002.

Six prisoners were treated for "minor injuries" and none of the U.S. guards was seriously hurt after the fight pitting 10 inmates against 10 U.S. guards, the officials said. The fight ended only after guards blasted detainees five times with a 12 gauge shotgun shooting rubber balls and used a grenade launcher that shot a blunt rubber object, officials said.

While guards were putting down the fight, detainees in nearby cells began rioting, destroying cameras used to monitor them, fans, florescent lights and other property, officials said.

Human rights activists decry the indefinite detention of Guantanamo detainees and accuse the United States of torture. The Pentagon insists detainees are treated humanely and not tortured, and says many dangerous al Qaeda and Taliban figures are held there.

Details of the clash emerged on the same day that the United Nations' top anti-torture body told Washington that any secret jails it ran for foreign terrorism suspects, along with the Guantanamo facility, were illegal and should be closed. The United States has refused to give U.N. human rights investigators access to the detainees.

"The detainees had slickened the floor of their block with feces, urine and soapy water in an attempt to trip the guards. They then assaulted the guards with broken light fixtures, fan blades and bits of metal," said Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris, who commands the Guantanamo facility.

The clash took place in Camp Four, a medium-security facility with communal living arrangements, Harris said.

'LOSING THE FIGHT'

Army Col. Mike Bumgarner, in charge of detention operations, said detainees were jumping off beds on top of the guards and knocked some guards to the ground, adding: "Frankly we were losing the fight at that point."

The guards used pepper spray, then the shotgun that fired 18 small rubber balls and the M203 grenade launcher to gain control, U.S. officials said. The fighting lasted four to five minutes, they said.

Earlier in the day, officials said, two other detainees, including one found frothing at the mouth, attempted suicide by swallowing pills, and they remained unconscious in stable condition.

"Detainees at Camp Four have the most privileges and are assigned to the camp when they have demonstrated continuous compliance with camp rules. However, we consider it to be the most dangerous camp because detainees have the opportunity to plan and act out in groups," Harris said in a telephone briefing from Guantanamo.

Harris said guards had been conducting searches ordered after the detention facilities were locked down due to the suicide attempts when they saw a Camp Four inmate hanging sheets from the ceiling apparently preparing to hang himself.

Harris described this as "a ruse" to lure the guards in order to attack them.

"We trained for the possibility that a suicide attempt may be used by the detainees to create an opportunity to conduct an assault, take a hostage or kill the guard. In fact, that was exactly what was going on last night," Harris said.

There was rioting in three of five units at Camp Four, officials said. It took an hour to restore order and another hour to move detainees into a maximum security facility, officials said.

Harris described the guard force as showing "remarkable restraint in the face of considerable danger."

The Pentagon said "approximately 460 detainees" remain at Guantanamo. Officials said no detainee has ever died there, although there have been 41 suicide attempts by 25 detainees.

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

Bring back the ball and chain.

[DCRunner]

I wonder what the real truth of what happened is. The Pentagon controls any and all information that comes out of Gitmo. Even judges in US District Court here in DC can't get them to provide information in pending cases.

[nelms]

They need to put these guys in single padded cells 24x7. These a-holes should never see the light of day. And no more Koran or what I like to call the Islamic Terrorist Handbook.

[PleaseBlitz]

I wonder what the real truth of what happened is. The Pentagon controls any and all information that comes out of Gitmo. Even judges in US District Court here in DC can't get them to provide information in pending cases.


The prisoners were probably innocently enjoying afternoon tea and knitting, when 10 drunken guards on a herion binge just started fireing rubber bullets at them for no reason while chanting satanic verses and drawing pictures of Muhammad. :rolleyes:

[Buford]

imagine if all those inmates were able to kill themselves right before they were about to crack, and finally give us the location of the WMD, and Bin Laden.

[Sarge]

I wonder what the real truth of what happened is. The Pentagon controls any and all information that comes out of Gitmo. Even judges in US District Court here in DC can't get them to provide information in pending cases.

Cheese and rice :rolleyes:

The guards, probably feeling sorry that the poor "insurgents", after having it explained to them a thousand times that they are in the West and don't have to wipe their asses with their hands, went in and wiped the prisoners asses with their own hands and spread the **** on the floor themselves. Just to set up the poor little "insurgnents" and give them a reason to beat them.

Damn some people are dense :rolleyes:

[DCRunner]

They need to put these guys in single padded cells 24x7. These a-holes should never see the light of day. And no more Koran or what I like to call the Islamic Terrorist Handbook.

These "a-holes," as you so elegantly put it, have not been convicted of anything. There hasn't even been any finding of probable cause that they committed any crime - and that only takes a tiny bit of evidence. Do you even know anything about the people they are detaining at Gitmo?

[Sarge]

These "a-holes," as you so elegantly put it, have not been convicted of anything. There hasn't even been any finding of probable cause that they committed any crime - and that only takes a tiny bit of evidence. Do you even know anything about the people they are detaining at Gitmo?

Ummm, these guys were rounded up shooting at US troops on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

Good enough reason for me for them to be there

[Larry]

Ummm, these guys were rounded up shooting at US troops on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

Good enough reason for me for them to be there

Some of them were.

OTOH, according to what I've read, (Newsweek? The article was about the attorneys who're trying to file habaeus corpus paperwork on behalf of Gitmo prisoners.), some of them peacefully walked up to american forces and explained that they were Arabs (Iraqi?) who'd come to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, but the Taliban had taken their passport, and they wanted to go home.

(One of the criteria for a ticket to Gitmo is "Arab male captured in Afghanistan without a passport.")

[nelms]

These "a-holes," as you so elegantly put it, have not been convicted of anything. There hasn't even been any finding of probable cause that they committed any crime - and that only takes a tiny bit of evidence. Do you even know anything about the people they are detaining at Gitmo?
They are terrorists. They are animals. I have more sympathy for the cockroach I stomped on this morning. If they were in my custody, they would all be executed for such an uprising.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Do you even know anything about the people they are detaining at Gitmo?


I know that they are terrorists. And I know this...


"The detainees had slickened the floor of their block with feces, urine and soapy water in an attempt to trip the guards. They then assaulted the guards with broken light fixtures, fan blades and bits of metal," said Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris, who commands the Guantanamo facility.?

Once we have squeezed every last bit of information out of them, their corpses should be tossed over into Cuba.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Some of them were.

OTOH, according to what I've read, (Newsweek? The article was about the attorneys who're trying to file habaeus corpus paperwork on behalf of Gitmo prisoners.), some of them peacefully walked up to american forces and explained that they were Arabs (Iraqi?) who'd come to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, but the Taliban had taken their passport, and they wanted to go home.

(One of the criteria for a ticket to Gitmo is "Arab male captured in Afghanistan without a passport.")


No, but "[coming] to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban" does meet the criteria.


:doh:

[Sarge]

Some of them were.

OTOH, according to what I've read, (Newsweek? The article was about the attorneys who're trying to file habaeus corpus paperwork on behalf of Gitmo prisoners.), some of them peacefully walked up to american forces and explained that they were Arabs (Iraqi?) who'd come to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, but the Taliban had taken their passport, and they wanted to go home.

(One of the criteria for a ticket to Gitmo is "Arab male captured in Afghanistan without a passport.")

Well, what a shame.

THey decided to go to Afghanistan to chop off fingers ears and tongues, (As was done ot some of our guides because they wouldn't fight for the Taliban), but when the big bad Yankee shows up and comences to kick ass well...................they want to go home

Tough ****

[nelms]

The sympathy I see for these dirty animals sickens me. What is wrong these people.

[Redskins Diehard]

These "a-holes," as you so elegantly put it, have not been convicted of anything. There hasn't even been any finding of probable cause that they committed any crime - and that only takes a tiny bit of evidence. Do you even know anything about the people they are detaining at Gitmo?

I know something about the ones we sent there. When I left OEF there were 10 lucky fellas that qualified for an all expense paid trip to Cuba. I wish you could meet some of them, I'm sure they would love you!

[nelms]

[some of them peacefully walked up to american forces and explained that they were Arabs (Iraqi?) who'd come to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, but the Taliban had taken their passport, and they wanted to go home.
I think that's called surrender. :doh:

[Seabee1973]

Some of them were.

OTOH, according to what I've read, (Newsweek? The article was about the attorneys who're trying to file habaeus corpus paperwork on behalf of Gitmo prisoners.), some of them peacefully walked up to american forces and explained that they were Arabs (Iraqi?) who'd come to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, but the Taliban had taken their passport, and they wanted to go home.

(One of the criteria for a ticket to Gitmo is "Arab male captured in Afghanistan without a passport.")

It could have been a trick to see if they could turn the tide and help the taliban out never know

[Larry]

Wow. The things you can learn on the internet.

Here I thought the specific information relating to why each prisoner is in Gitmo was classified. (Because after all, if the US were to reveal, say, what Prisoner #6 was doing when he was captured three years after the fact, then that would cause our very civilization to collapse.)

But here I am, surrounded by dozens of people, who've had access to the classified information on every single one of the people being kept there. And every one of these people has not only had access to these (classified) materials, they've personally spent the time to review each and every case, so that they can come to the informed conclusion that every single person being detained there is a terrorist who's personally chopped off fingers ears and tongues.

Here I would've thought that it was tough for someone to determine whether a particular person is, or has ever been, a terrorist. But here we've got five or six people who can do it reliably.

Now here, some people when confronted by the conflict between reports from an attorney who's actually reviewed the documentation, and the "case against" some of the detainees, and who claim that according to the US Army, the detainee was unarmed and peacefull at the time of capture, that the Army has no evidence that the detainee has ever participated in combat, that the entire "case" against the detainee was that he was a male Arab without a passport, and that his first name (the most common first name in Afghanistan) was mentioned several times in radio intercepts during the attack on Tora Bora, (Although the detainee surrendered himself hundreds of miles from Tora Bora.), contrasted with the unsupported assertion that every single detainee was captured with an AK-47 in his hands, a grenade on his vest, and a knife in his clenched teeth, shouting "Death to Americans" (in English), would tend to conclude that perhaps the person making the blanket assertions was engaging in that subtle debating technique referred to as "BS".

But not me. I'm absolutely convinced by all of the blanket (and completely unsupported) declarations of our 100% accurate system to chosing people who should be confined forever with no reasons given whatsoever. How could I possibly have disagreed with such firsthand knowledge?

[Bonef1de]

I've been to Cuba.


Compared to the rest of the country these prisoners are staying at the Hilton.

[Painkiller]

I think the biggest problem with all those who are calling for Gitmo to be shut down, is that they want us, Americans to be the "better people." Which would be fine, if the terrorists they are holding down there, CARED whether we were the "better people" or not. When one of these freed terrorists decides to carry out a suicide bombing somewhere , he's not going to care which Americans he kills. Liberals or Conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, or even Independents. He just wants to kill Americans, because we are the enemy, and we will STILL be the enemy even after we let them go home. Just my :2cents:

[Larry]

Make that "I'm surrounded by people who can tell from here that every single detainee is a terrorist and can tell me what they will do if released."

[s0crates]

I think the biggest problem with all those who are calling for Gitmo to be shut down, is that they want us, Americans to be the "better people." Which would be fine, if the terrorists they are holding down there, CARED whether we were the "better people" or not. When one of these freed terrorists decides to carry out a suicide bombing somewhere , he's not going to care which Americans he kills. Liberals or Conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, or even Independents. He just wants to kill Americans, because we are the enemy, and we will STILL be the enemy even after we let them go home. Just my :2cents:You act as though Arabs hate Americans for no reason. They are still mad that we put a ruthless puppet dictator in power in Iran (way more ruthless than Hussein or Castro) for 20 years. They are mad that we give their sworn enemy (Israel) the means to oppress them. Mostly, they are mad because we bomb their cities. You act as if America wouldn't bomb civilians in a country that was sponsering the bombing of our civilians. They kill us, we kill them. Its war. Thats what its like. This is why some of us are against it.

The trouble is both sides of this conflict still have a primitive eye-for-an-eye mentality. (That and neither side can give up the superstitious/religious aspects of their faiths).

[Larry]

I've been to Cuba.


Compared to the rest of the country these prisoners are staying at the Hilton.

Yeah, I'd bet "hypothermia leading to unconsciousness" is a really common occurrance in Cuba outside Gitmo.

[s0crates]

The sympathy I see for these dirty animals sickens me. What is wrong these people.
They are terrorists. They are animals. I have more sympathy for the cockroach I stomped on this morning. If they were in my custody, they would all be executed for such an uprising.My friend, this is the USA. We don't believe that stuff here. We believe "all men are created equal." We believe in civil/human rights. We believe in "due process." If we seek safety or revenge at the expense of our humanitarian principles, we become terrorists too.

[Sarge]

My friend, this is the USA. We don't believe that stuff here. We believe "all men are created equal." We believe in civil/human rights. We believe in "due process." If we seek safety or revenge at the expense of our humanitarian principles, we become terrorists too.

JMU has evidently brainwashed you

[luckydevil]

JMU has evidently brainwashed you

What exactly is wrong about what he said? The human rights part, the due process part,...........?

[s0crates]

JMU has evidently brainwashed youSadly, our principles and our practices are two different things.

Of the two, it was the principles to which I referred, and of which there can be little question. The US Constitution, the document on which our government is based, clearly reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime . . .without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Further, it says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." The Declaration of Independence, the document that founded the nation, is even more humanitarian, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sadly, in practice the US has proven not to practice what it preaches. From the genocide of native Americans, to slavery, to segregation, to Japanese concentration camps, to Guantanamo bay, the US has too often been the enemy of the noble humane principles on which it was founded on. Nonetheless, some of us still believe in them.

[s0crates]

Now that I think about it Sarge, I geuss you may object to all this "rights" talk on the grounds that you are a good Utilitarian, an adherent of J. S. Mill and the rest of the Benthamites. But even J. S. Mill acknowledged the practical use of rights in saying that each member of soceity "should be bound to observe a certain conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another, or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights." As such, I think "rights" talk is permissable even if we deny "rights" as decreed by God or some similiar authority.

Furthermore, I think those who defend such human rights violations on utilitarian grounds really misunderstand utility. It is true that utilitarians favored a system of punishment, but it was based on a deterministic psychological outlook. For them, punishment is administered to prevent crime, not because we hate the criminal. It is therfore more important that the punishment be certain than that it be severe. There is nothing that would support the type of vengence I was criticizing to be found in this philosophy. As Mill himself said, echoing someone else you might know, "Do not to others that which you would not that they should do unto you" and "what is right for one man is right for another."

I also think those who defend war on utilitarian grounds misunderstand utility. Bentham, the chief figure of the whole movement, was very much an enemy of imperialism. The whole of the utilitarian movement generally opposed war, supporting war only when it was neccessary to prevent greater harm. In that sense, one might say they believed in only just wars. Few wars, least of all the one in which we are presently engaged, could be said to live up to their criteria. For this reason, I think the way you have quoted Mill is intellectually dishonest. Mill was advocating war only when it could be shown to prevent harm greater than the war itself.

[s0crates]

Oops. Double Post. :paranoid:

[luckydevil]

I geuss you may object to all this "rights" talk on the grounds that you are a good Utilitarian, an adherent of J. S. Mill and the rest of the Benthamites.

Dude, he just likes the quote.

[s0crates]

Dude, he just likes the quote.Right. I geuss I just take offense (both personally and for my school) when someone questions my education as he did.

I geuss it was an overreaction though. :rant:

I'll try to cool it, but can't promise much. I'm just naturally this abrasive.:silly:

[Sarge]

They are mad that we give their sworn enemy (Israel) the means to oppress them.

Ahh, there we go, the "Israel is bad" lean.

Damn those pesky Jews :rolleyes:

You really need a trip to the middle east. It'll undo the brainwashing they've been teaching you on campus

[Sarge]

Sadly, our principles and our practices are two different things.

Of the two, it was the principles to which I referred, and of which there can be little question. The US Constitution, the document on which our government is based, clearly reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime . . .without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Further, it says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." The Declaration of Independence, the document that founded the nation, is even more humanitarian, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sadly, in practice the US has proven not to practice what it preaches. From the genocide of native Americans, to slavery, to segregation, to Japanese concentration camps, to Guantanamo bay, the US has too often been the enemy of the noble humane principles on which it was founded on. Nonetheless, some of us still believe in them.

As has been stated here ad nauseum, the Constitution does not apply to ENEMY COMBATANTS

[Sarge]

Now that I think about it Sarge, I geuss you may object to all this "rights" talk on the grounds that you are a good Utilitarian, an adherent of J. S. Mill and the rest of the Benthamites. But even J. S. Mill acknowledged the practical use of rights in saying that each member of soceity "should be bound to observe a certain conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another, or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights." As such, I think "rights" talk is permissable even if we deny "rights" as decreed by God or some similiar authority.

Furthermore, I think those who defend such human rights violations on utilitarian grounds really misunderstand utility. It is true that utilitarians favored a system of punishment, but it was based on a deterministic psychological outlook. For them, punishment is administered to prevent crime, not because we hate the criminal. It is therfore more important that the punishment be certain than that it be severe. There is nothing that would support the type of vengence I was criticizing to be found in this philosophy. As Mill himself said, echoing someone else you might know, "Do not to others that which you would not that they should do unto you" and "what is right for one man is right for another."

I also think those who defend war on utilitarian grounds misunderstand utility. Bentham, the chief figure of the whole movement, was very much an enemy of imperialism. The whole of the utilitarian movement generally opposed war, supporting war only when it was neccessary to prevent greater harm. In that sense, one might say they believed in only just wars. Few wars, least of all the one in which we are presently engaged, could be said to live up to their criteria. For this reason, I think the way you have quoted Mill is intellectually dishonest. Mill was advocating war only when it could be shown to prevent harm greater than the war itself.

He's right, I just like the quote, especially in this day and age. Otherwise it would have been a good observation

[s0crates]

As has been stated here ad nauseum, the Constitution does not apply to ENEMY COMBATANTSYou may be right about this in a legal sense. I'll concede that what is happening in Guantanamo and other federal prisons is Constitutional and therfore legal.

However, I was not making a legal claim. Rather, I was merely using the Constitution as a description of American principles. I am only saying that what is happening in Guantanamo goes against our values. It may be legal without being right. Shouldn't all people have the same rights as Americans? Are we more worthy of humane treatment because we were lucky enough to be born in the United States?

[Sarge]

You may be right about this in a legal sense. I'll concede that what is happening in Guantanamo and other federal prisons is Constitutional and therfore legal.

However, I was not making a legal claim. Rather, I was merely using the Constitution as a description of American principles. I am only saying that what is happening in Guantanamo goes against our values. It may be legal without being right. Shouldn't all people have the same rights as Americans? Are we more worthy of humane treatment because we were lucky enough to be born in the United States?

The terrorists in Gitmo are not American.

[s0crates]

Ahh, there we go, the "Israel is bad" lean.
I don't think Israel is bad, per se. I was just trying to describe why many Muslims do not like us. Israel has tanks and Palestinians have rocks. Can you imagine what it feels like to be a Palestinian?

In many ways, Israel is a model state in a region where most states are not. But that does not mean that Israel has never misused the power we gave them. Innocent Palestinians have died at the hands of Israeli troops, and the US is seen as responsible for that.

I do not mean to defend terrorists, merely to describe their motivation. Too many people think terrorists hate Americans because we are "free," or because we are "rich," or because we are Christians. The fact is they hate us because of our foreign policy, and people should know that.

[CrabR]

I don't think Israel is bad, per se.

No, but many people tend to forget how Israel was founded and the terrorist acts they used against the Arabs and Brits. Israel is no goody two shoes in this mid east mess, it takes 2 to tango and 2 to make peace

If we throw out the Fundamentalist in Israel as well as the Fundamentalist in Islam, there may be a chance of peace.




Too many people think terrorists hate Americans because we are "free," or because we are "rich," or because we are Christians. The fact is they hate us because of our foreign policy, and people should know that.

Everytime I hear Bush say they hate us because of our freedoms i want to puke, they hate us because of our foreign policy.

[SkinsFTW]

Hell, if they want to kill themselves we should provide the pills.

[Larry]

As has been stated here ad nauseum, the Constitution does not apply to ENEMY COMBATANTS

And as has been stated in the Constitution, yes, it does.

This is what the Constitution has to say about ENEMY COMBATANTS:


Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


See, it doesn't say "should a future President discover a word or phrase which is not present in this Constitution, then the President shall have unlimited authority (and a person shall have no rights whatsoever) when concerning any person who has had that term used against him."

It says "If it isn't in here, then the government has no authority, and the person has full rights".

(Nor does it say "these rights and authorities listed here only apply to US citizens, within the US, whan said citizen is not interacting in any way with any person who is not a citizen or who is not within the US, and only in peacetime, and only to people whom the President has not declared to be beyond the Constitution. If any of those conditions apply, then the Government shall have unlimited authority.")

[Mad Mike]

And as has been stated in the Constitution, yes, it does.

This is what the Constitution has to say about ENEMY COMBATANTS:



See, it doesn't say "should a future President discover a word or phrase which is not present in this Constitution, then the President shall have unlimited authority (and a person shall have no rights whatsoever) when concerning any person who has had that term used against him."

It says "If it isn't in here, then the government has no authority, and the person has full rights".

(Nor does it say "these rights and authorities listed here only apply to US citizens, within the US, whan said citizen is not interacting in any way with any person who is not a citizen or who is not within the US, and only in peacetime, and only to people whom the President has not declared to be beyond the Constitution. If any of those conditions apply, then the Government shall have unlimited authority.")

Nothing in the quotes you provide refers to anyone other than americans. So NO, it does not refer to enemy combatants.

And s0crates, considering that the people held in Guantanamo are AlQaeda terrorists and dangerous people, most captured (red handed) in battle, who if set free would attack the US and our forces, they are being treated well.

Onle look at the way they treat us, from their desire to kill thousand or millions of american civilians to the way they treat thir captives, will tell anyone with half a brain that we retain the moral high ground.

[NoCalMike]

If they hate us because of our "freedom" then they should be happy with the Bush Administration trying to take away some of our freedom and civil liberties ever since 9/11.

[Redskins Diehard]

Right. I geuss I just take offense (both personally and for my school) when someone questions my education as he did.

I geuss it was an overreaction though. :rant:

I'll try to cool it, but can't promise much. I'm just naturally this abrasive.:silly:

I "geuss" there is no good reason to question your education.:)

[nelms]

If they hate us because of our "freedom" then they should be happy with the Bush Administration trying to take away some of our freedom and civil liberties ever since 9/11.
What specific freedoms and civil liberties have been taken from you? Seriously, answer the question. As a matter of fact, can anyone on this board express what freedoms and liberties the Bush administration has taken away from them. Give everyone your personal experiences.

[s0crates]

I "geuss" there is no good reason to question your education.I guess I always do that.:doh:

[NoCalMike]

What specific freedoms and civil liberties have been taken from you? Seriously, answer the question. As a matter of fact, can anyone on this board express what freedoms and liberties the Bush administration has taken away from them. Give everyone your personal experiences.

Well due process is definately out the window. Telecommunications Act is being abused. Warrant-less wiretappings.

[nelms]

I "geuss" there is no good reason to question your education.:)
:owned:

[nelms]

Well due process is definately out the window. Telecommunications Act is being abused. Warrant-less wiretappings.
How have these things that you claim are abuses affecting you personally? Or your family or friends? Or anyone else that you know personally? Or anyone else you know through second hand or third hand information? Can you cite specific examples of these abuses?

[s0crates]

How have these things that you claim are abuses affecting you personally? Or your family or friends? Or anyone else that you know personally? Or anyone else you know through second hand or third hand information? Can you cite specific examples of these abuses?You should read up on the Patriot Act and other threats to civil rights that have happened in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Here, I'll get you started:

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:82013452&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AMode20d%3ADocG%3AResult&ao


In particular, the right to freedom of expression has been compromised. In one incident, the cartoon Boondocks was pulled from some newspapers in New York because it was deemed either "un-American" or too political.
The same could be said about television programs. Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect was dropped by fifteen stations after remarks he made after September 11 were deemed inappropriate--and most likely his contract won't be renewed in 2002.
Airport security has understandably been a prime concern since the terrorist attacks. But in the name of "national security" some passengers' civil liberties have been violated. Green Party USA coordinator Nancy Oden was stopped by government agents while trying to board an American Airlines flight in Bangor, Maine, in October. She wasn't arrested for anything--merely prevented from flying. Oden had been scheduled to speak at the Greens' national committee meeting in Chicago to work on details of a campaign against biochemical warfare and the party's peace agenda. According to Oden, "An official told me that my name had been flagged in the computer. ... I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan." Chicago Green activist Lionel Trepanier commented, "The attack on the right of association of an opposition political party is chilling. The harassment of peace activists is reprehensible."
On November 1 Circuit Court Judge James Stucky upheld the three-day suspension handed down by Sissonville High School officials against Charleston, West Virginia, student Katie Sierra for promoting an "Anarchy Club" and wearing anti-war T-shirts in school. In October, high-school student Aaron Pettit of Fairview Park, Ohio, was suspended for ten days for displaying anti-war posters on his locker--one depicting an eagle with a tear drop and others with bombers drawn on them with messages like "May God have mercy, because we will not." Pettit sued the school in federal court and was reinstated. Even teachers have been suspended for merely voicing their views about the military action and policies now enacted.
Websites have also been shut down. Hypervine, an Internet service provider, forced Cosmic Entertainment to pull three radio show sites on the Internet, among them Al Lewis Live, because they allegedly contained pro-terrorist materials. The sites were reportedly forced from the Net when Hypervine received calls from someone identifying himself as a federal agent and threatening seizure of Hypervine's assets if the sites weren't shut down. Al Lewis, who played Grandpa in the 1960s television show The Munsters, said, "I lived through the McCarthy period. It will get worse."
This article details only the abuses that happened in 2002, but you can undoubtedly find out about many others if you are so inclinced. You have to admit, the similarities to McCarthy's Red Scare (which you undoubtedly remember) are very disconcerting.

[Larry]

Nothing in the quotes you provide refers to anyone other than americans. So NO, it does not refer to enemy combatants.

1) The word "Americans" does not exist in the portion I quoted, nor, I believe, anywhere else in that entire document. The word used is "people".

2) The portion I quoted does state that anything that isn't mentioned in the Constitution is forbidden to the government. Please show me the portion of the Coustitution which says "The President shall have the power to grant himself authority to torture people". (Remember: If it's not authorised, then it's forbidden.)


And s0crates, considering that the people held in Guantanamo are AlQaeda terrorists and dangerous people, most captured (red handed) in battle, who if set free would attack the US and our forces, they are being treated well.

Onle look at the way they treat us, from their desire to kill thousand or millions of american civilians to the way they treat thir captives, will tell anyone with half a brain that we retain the moral high ground.

I'm sorry, I must have missed your qualifications to testify to the guilt of every single person being held, the circumstances of their capture, their future actions, or their desires or motivations.

(I'd be willing to grant your authority to testify as to the reactions of people with half a brain, if that would make your reply easier.) :)

[Larry]

What specific freedoms and civil liberties have been taken from you? Seriously, answer the question. As a matter of fact, can anyone on this board express what freedoms and liberties the Bush administration has taken away from them. Give everyone your personal experiences.

Here's a brief summary.


Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5

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.

Amendment 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Larry]

s0crates,

I'll point out that at the very least, the first two items you list do not appear to have anything to do with the government, let alone Bush.

[Larry]

How have these things that you claim are abuses affecting you personally? Or your family or friends? Or anyone else that you know personally? Or anyone else you know through second hand or third hand information? Can you cite specific examples of these abuses?

Tell you what: I've got an idea that will make tailgate threads a whole lot shorter and easier to read.

I'll agree that no one can post, on this forum, about the government's attack on the Constitution unless they, personally, have been disapeared by the government.

If you'll agree that no one is allowed to post about terrorism, or to even claim that terrorism is a problem, unless they, personally, have been killed by a terrorist.

If, OTOH, you are one of those wierdos who think that people have a legitimate interest in stopping terrorism even if they haven't been struck yet, then I'll thank you to extend the same courtesy to people who'd prefer not to wait untill after the Men In Black come for them.

[nelms]

You should read up on the Patriot Act and other threats to civil rights that have happened in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Here, I'll get you started:

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:82013452&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AMode20d%3ADocG%3AResult&ao


This article details only the abuses that happened in 2002, but you can undoubtedly find out about many others if you are so inclinced. You have to admit, the similarities to McCarthy's Red Scare (which you undoubtedly remember) are very disconcerting.
Horrible, horrible examples. The first two examples were carried out by newspapers and televison stations. Private institutions making their own decisions. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Federal government, the Bush administration, or the Patriot Act.

Your 3rd example is the only one that has anything remotely related to the Federal government. I still don't buy the whole "I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan". That is just conjecture on the "victim's" part. There could be many other reasons this particular person was flagged and on a no-fly list. Hell, there have been reported cases of U.S. Senators and Congressman being pulled out of line for airport searches, Republicans an Democrats.

Your 4th example is another weak attempt. What do 2 high schools, making local decisions about what students can and cannot display have to do with the Bush administration or the Patriot Act? These are 2 schools making their own decisions, whether they were right or wrong. They have nothing to do with the Bush administration and civil rights.

Your last example is just off the charts hilarious. Yeah, let's close down our website because someone posing as a fed agent is threatening us. I mean, WTF? The quote by Grandpa Munster is a classic.

Dude, you need to come back with something a little stronger than this. :doh:

[nelms]

Tell you what: I've got an idea that will make tailgate threads a whole lot shorter and easier to read.

I'll agree that no one can post, on this forum, about the government's attack on the Constitution unless they, personally, have been disapeared by the government.

If you'll agree that no one is allowed to post about terrorism, or to even claim that terrorism is a problem, unless they, personally, have been killed by a terrorist.

If, OTOH, you are one of those wierdos who think that people have a legitimate interest in stopping terrorism even if they haven't been struck yet, then I'll thank you to extend the same courtesy to people who'd prefer not to wait untill after the Men In Black come for them.
Huh? I was just asking a question. No need to get your panties all in a wad.

[Mad Mike]

1) The word "Americans" does not exist in the portion I quoted, nor, I believe, anywhere else in that entire document. The word used is "people".

2) The portion I quoted does state that anything that isn't mentioned in the Constitution is forbidden to the government. Please show me the portion of the Coustitution which says "The President shall have the power to grant himself authority to torture people". (Remember: If it's not authorised, then it's forbidden.)



I'm sorry, I must have missed your qualifications to testify to the guilt of every single person being held, the circumstances of their capture, their future actions, or their desires or motivations.

(I'd be willing to grant your authority to testify as to the reactions of people with half a brain, if that would make your reply easier.) :)

A) "WE THE PEOPLE" refers to americans. Everything in the document refers to Americans and their rights. THAT IS THE CONTEXT. That is a fact. Your attempt top remove the quotes from context in an attempt to change their meaning is transparent and silly. :doh:

B) Show me one shread of evidence that says the president has authorized torture. Show me evidence that the detainies at Guantanamo are being tortured.

C) It's a fact that these people were captured in battle with americans. It's silly to assume that we would not do our very best to only bring the most dangerous and valuable people to keep there at great expense. If you want to assume they are innocent, that's your issue.

[nelms]

A) "WE THE PEOPLE" refers to americans. Everything in the document refers to Americans and their rights. THAT IS THE CONTEXT. That is a fact. Your attempt top remove the quotes from context in an attempt to change their meaning is transparent and silly. :doh:

B) Show me one shread of evidence that says the president has authorized torture. Show me evidence that the detainies at Guantanamo are being tortured.

C) It's a fact that these people were captured in battle with americans. It's silly to assume that we would not do our very best to only bring the most dangerous and valuable people to keep there at great expense. If you want to assume they are innocent, that's your issue.
A) You mean the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to Russians or Iranians or the Chinese? I am shocked!
B) Forget about the facts. It sounds good to say Bush approves of torture.
C) But, but, but ... all they wanted to do was go home. They didn't mean to shoot at the Americans. The Taliban made them do it.

[Redskins Diehard]

Tell you what: I've got an idea that will make tailgate threads a whole lot shorter and easier to read.

I'll agree that no one can post, on this forum, about the government's attack on the Constitution unless they, personally, have been disapeared by the government.

If you'll agree that no one is allowed to post about terrorism, or to even claim that terrorism is a problem, unless they, personally, have been killed by a terrorist.

If, OTOH, you are one of those wierdos who think that people have a legitimate interest in stopping terrorism even if they haven't been struck yet, then I'll thank you to extend the same courtesy to people who'd prefer not to wait untill after the Men In Black come for them.

Larry that is a pretty overstated comparison. How about "nobody can post unless they, personally, have been affected by terrorism?"

So far I have only seen examples of what maybe, could, possibly happen in the absolute worst case scenario regarding the wiretaps, and databases. Since we are dealing almost exclusively in hypotheticals concerning the outcome of the governments "liberty grab", should we not also speak in hypotheticals about what the next terrorist attack will be like?

[s0crates]

s0crates,

I'll point out that at the very least, the first two items you list do not appear to have anything to do with the government, let alone Bush.True, those are not examples of particular government actions, but I thought the question asked to cite examples of recent civil rights abuses. I, for one, find it a bit disconcerting when our "free press" is scared to air dissenting opinions. Dissent is an essential aspect of successful democracies.

While I agree that those two examples do not demonstrate blatant government action to restrict the press, I disagree that the Bush administration had nothing to do with them. As the leader of our nation, the president is at least partially responsible for creating a political climate where dissent is feared.

[s0crates]

Your 3rd example is the only one that has anything remotely related to the Federal government. I still don't buy the whole "I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan". That is just conjecture on the "victim's" part. There could be many other reasons this particular person was flagged and on a no-fly list. Hell, there have been reported cases of U.S. Senators and Congressman being pulled out of line for airport searches, Republicans an Democrats.You do not agree that those searches were breeches of civil liberties? If that is the case, I am almost sure we will be unable to resolve our disagreement on this matter.


Your 4th example is another weak attempt. What do 2 high schools, making local decisions about what students can and cannot display have to do with the Bush administration or the Patriot Act? These are 2 schools making their own decisions, whether they were right or wrong. They have nothing to do with the Bush administration and civil rights.Well, I wouldn't say they have NOTHING to do with the Bush administration, but I'll concede that they were not the result of executive or other federal action. Alas, I must completely disagree with you when you say these matters have nothing to do with civil rights. They have EVERYTHING to do with civil rights. These students 1st ammendmant rights were clearly violated. In one instance, the action of the school board was even upheld by a judge. That, you must say, is the government interfereing with a citizen's right to speak.


Your last example is just off the charts hilarious. Yeah, let's close down our website because someone posing as a fed agent is threatening us. I mean, WTF? The quote by Grandpa Munster is a classic.:laugh:I thought a gentlemen of your age would appreciate the reference.;)

[s0crates]

B) Forget about the facts. It sounds good to say Bush approves of torture.The FACT is: Bush nominated a judge that favors overturning the Geneva Convention. That may not demonstrate definitevly that he approves of torture, but I'd call it evidence.

[Larry]

A) "WE THE PEOPLE" refers to americans. Everything in the document refers to Americans and their rights. THAT IS THE CONTEXT. That is a fact. Your attempt top remove the quotes from context in an attempt to change their meaning is transparent and silly. :doh:

B) Show me one shread of evidence that says the president has authorized torture. Show me evidence that the detainies at Guantanamo are being tortured.

C) It's a fact that these people were captured in battle with americans. It's silly to assume that we would not do our very best to only bring the most dangerous and valuable people to keep there at great expense. If you want to assume they are innocent, that's your issue.

A) "WE THE PEOPLE" is a phrase from the preamble. The quote I gave you is full and complete.

And what it says is that the only powers the government has are the ones listed.

Nowhere in there does it say that "In the case of non-citizens, the government has unlimited authority to do whatever it wants".

B) Newsweek magazine, (I think it was Newsweek), within the last few months, had a cover story about detainees at Gitmo. They had photos, released by the US government, showing prisoners being suspended from their handcuffed wrists, and statements from guards, released by the government, stating that hypothermia (to the point of unconsciousness) were considered acceptable interrogation techniques.

No, Newsweek didn't produce a piece of paper personally signed by W, containing the words "I authorise torture". But as commander in chief, it seems reasonable to me that those actions aren't happening despite the President's orders.

Edit: And I seem to remember Sarge claiming that one reason We Are Better Than Terrorists is because our commanders are responsable for the actions of the troops under them.

C) I believe the same article, interviewing the volunteer attorneys (all formar military personell with security clearances) who were trying to represent the detainees in Federal court. They included the story of one detainee, an Arab (Iraqi?) who went to Afghanistan to support the Taliban (against Pakistan?). He said that as part of his joining the Taliban, he was required to surrender his passport to his commanding officer. When the Americans invaded, he peacefully approached an American checkpoint, identified himself, said that he didn't have a passport and wanted to go home. According to the attorneys reviewing his case, the government's entire reason for sending him to Gitmo was a) Arab male in Afghanistan without a passport, and b) during the fighting around Tora Borah, the US intercepted several Taliban radio transmissions mentioning a name. (This name is the same as the detainee's first name, but it's also the most common first name in his country.) (Those are the reasons the government gives for why he's there.)

So it would appear that, in at least one case, even the people in charge at Gitmo disagree with your "fact" that "these people were captured in battle with Americans". They've specifically said, in writing, that he wasn't.

-----

Now, yeah, I'm willing to assume that most of the folks "in there" are there because the government has a pretty good reason. (Maybe not "beyond a reasonable doubt" reasons, but at least "pretty good" reasons.) (I don't think that our military, or even The Great Satan Bush, are people who just get their rocks off torturing people.) Somebody, somewhere, looked at this individual person and said "Send this one to Gitmo."

I simply have a problem with the people who, whenever Gitmo or similar places are mentioned, rush to the walls to declare that every single person in there is a multiple-murdering terrorist who was caught while actually in the act of beheading a jewish child.

(And with the people who want to claim that "well, the Constitution may say something, but see, the Constitution only counts in very limited cases, and the President gets to decide who it applies to and who it doesn't, and everywhere else, the government has unlimited power.")

[Prosperity]

DjTj had a really good post on this topic:


Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

Privileges and immunities for citizens, due process for any person, and equal protection for any person within US jurisidiction.

The United States Constitution protects more than just citizens.

[Larry]

Liberty (and DjTj),

Thanks for the quote. I hadn't remembered that part.

(Waiting for the next response. Let me guess: "But that quote doesn't say that the President can't do illegal things to people who aren't citizens!")

[Bonef1de]

http://che-mart.com/images/Jihad_ACLU.jpg



Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.

[DCRunner]

The US government is using methods of interrogation which are most assuredly torture to try to get information out of the detainees, not necessarily as punishment for being a "terrorist." Although I'm sure "punishment" is a staple of their treatment.

The necessity to ensure that human rights are respected and that detainees are treated in accord with them, no matter how you label them (Geneva Conventions/due process/whatever), is as much for our benefit - maybe even more so - as it is for the benefit of the detainees. I want us to behave in a civilized, lawful manner.

[Sarge]

The US government is using methods of interrogation which are most assuredly torture to try to get information out of the detainees, not necessarily as punishment for being a "terrorist." Although I'm sure "punishment" is a staple of their treatment.

The necessity to ensure that human rights are respected and that detainees are treated in accord with them, no matter how you label them (Geneva Conventions/due process/whatever), is as much for our benefit - maybe even more so - as it is for the benefit of the detainees. I want us to behave in a civilized, lawful manner.

We're not the ones smearing **** all over their cells

[I_Bleed_B&G]

They need to put these guys in single padded cells 24x7. These a-holes should never see the light of day. And no more Koran or what I like to call the Islamic Terrorist Handbook.

I'm muslim and I find that very offensive. You are so one sided in thinking. Not all muslims are bad and Islam does not promote any type of terrorist acts. There are just some people who misinterpret the Koran just as there are some that do the same with the other holy books.

[s0crates]

An interesting passage from the "Islamic Terrorist Handbook:"


When your enemy tends towards peace you shall do the same.

[CurseReversed]

When your enemy tends towards peace you shall do the same.
keep trying to stop bullets and bombs with flowers and see how far that gets you in the real world. In the poorer parts of the middle east our guantanamo prisons are like middle class housing, our "torture" is probably the best day any prisoner has ever had in any prison run by sadaam or the taliban. Its funny to hear people rant about their rights being abused, If we were in a prison run by them theyd be chopping heads off not stopping people from hanging themselves. And even if their are a few innocent ones who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time mixed in with the bunch. What can you do things like that happen in wartime on a battlefield. Its simply not practical to call upon the illligitamecy of the whole prison because you believe there might be a small minority who are unfairly imprisoned. This is a war camp more then a prison, and right now getting combatants that could cause harm to our military and efforts, off the field of battle is far more important then making sure each and every one is detained for a legitament reason.

Do not let your faith in human nature and its inherit goodness cause you to paint pretty faces on those who would destroy us and all that we have built if it was in their power to do so. The freedoms and rights we enjoy in this country, that we STILL enjoy to this day despite assertions to the contrary, That many other nations enjoy or are aspiring to enjoy, are what are under attack. We believe these rights and freedoms belong to all human beings not just us. And we fight those who wish to destroy the institutions that grant people these rights and replace them with the rule of god and a narrow archiac interpretation of the koran, we also fight those who replace these institutions with an oppressive and totalitarian regime subject too the absolute power of one dictator and his pesonal desires. there is a clear line, not much gray, freedom or suppression, democracy or dictatorship, stand on one side of it and fight vigorously to defend it or be a fool.

[herrmag]

keep trying to stop bullets and bombs with flowers and see how far that gets you in the real world. In the poorer parts of the middle east our guantanamo prisons are like middle class housing, our "torture" is probably the best day any prisoner has ever had in any prison run by sadaam or the taliban. Its funny to hear people rant about their rights being abused, If we were in a prison run by them theyd be chopping heads off not stopping people from hanging themselves. And even if their are a few innocent ones who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time mixed in with the bunch. What can you do things like that happen in wartime on a battlefield. Its simply not practical to call upon the illligitamecy of the whole prison because you believe there might be a small minority who are unfairly imprisoned. This is a war camp more then a prison, and right now getting combatants that could cause harm to our military and efforts, off the field of battle is far more important then making sure each and every one is detained for a legitament reason.

Do not let your faith in human nature and its inherit goodness cause you to paint pretty faces on those who would destroy us and all that we have built if it was in their power to do so. The freedoms and rights we enjoy in this country, that we STILL enjoy to this day despite assertions to the contrary, That many other nations enjoy or are aspiring to enjoy, are what are under attack. We believe these rights and freedoms belong to all human beings not just us. And we fight those who wish to destroy the institutions that grant people these rights and replace them with the rule of god and a narrow archiac interpretation of the koran, we also fight those who replace these institutions with an oppressive and totalitarian regime subject too the absolute power of one dictator and his pesonal desires. there is a clear line, not much gray, freedom or suppression, democracy or dictatorship, stand on one side of it and fight vigorously to defend it or be a fool.

I hear what you're saying, to an extent; But if we use the same, or similar tactics, it makes us hypocrites, right? War is an ugly thing, and if you want to win, you have to commit terrible acts. It's an ugly truth that many Americans don't agree with because we've been kicking ass for so long. However, when possible, I pray we take the high road, and I think we do. Unfortunately, necessary evils are just that from time to time. Necessary.

[Sarge]

An interesting passage from the "Islamic Terrorist Handbook:"


So is this



047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

[s0crates]

So is thisOur own Holy Bible has its share of questionable passages:

Exodus 21:7
Exodus 35:2

Shall I assume all Christians sell their daughters as slaves and execute people who work on the sabbath? I mean the trouble with religions is that they are so religious. We have to be able to use reason when looking at our faiths because they contain seeds of truth as well as absurdities. I mean, I hope we can reject the ridiculous passages and keep the ones that make sense, because I like passages like the one I quoted from the Koran and this from our own Bible:

Matthew 5:44

And let us not forget, it was not too long ago that we were burning witches at the stake and executing heretics. Hopefully their civilization can mature as ours has. If it can, it won't be accomplished by force. Our use of force only validates their superstitious beliefs.

[Sarge]

Our own Holy Bible has its share of questionable passages:

Exodus 21:7
Exodus 35:2

Shall I assume all Christians sell their daughters as slaves and execute people who work on the sabbath? I hope we can just keep the passages that make sense, because I like the ones like this:

Matthew 5:44

I know it's hard to not go the moral equivalency route, because that's what schools teach nowadays :rolleyes:

But I don't see hundreds of thousands of Christians subscribing to the violent passages of the Bible (Timothy McVeigh aside. Just because that's always the retort of the left)

We do however, as I said, have hundreds of thousands of muslims subscribing to verses just like the above.

The end result has been this

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/berg_killing.zip

WARNING

Don't open this link if you are squemish/ don't like blood and/or death.

[Prosperity]

Liberty (and DjTj),

Thanks for the quote. I hadn't remembered that part.

(Waiting for the next response. Let me guess: "But that quote doesn't say that the President can't do illegal things to people who aren't citizens!")

where did they go? You would think they would have the balls to admit they were wrong. :laugh:

[Mad Mike]

DjTj had a really good post on this topic:

I'm begining to wonder if some people failed reading comprehension...


nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Changes the whole tone of the quote doesn't it.

[Prosperity]

Yup, so we have the 5th amendment which applies to the Fed and the 14th which applies to the the states. That about covers all two parts of our federal system.

[Larry]

I'm begining to wonder if some people failed reading comprehension...



Changes the whole tone of the quote doesn't it.

Still dodging the "Find a place where the Constitution authorises kidnapping, torture, and warrantless searches" challenge, aren't you?

Still fighting the "As long as I can try to come up with a loophole or a re-phrasing, then I can pretend the Constitution doesn't prohibit something, and that's good enough".

[Prosperity]

Limitation on the Fed:

5th amendment

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 offence 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.

Limitation on the States:

14th amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So what is the gist of the argument, that non citizens are not people? You would also think that since the founding fathers explicitly used the word citizen when describing the qualifications of elected officials they would also have used it later. I wonder why they didn't hmmmmmmmmm

[G-Prime]

These "a-holes," as you so elegantly put it, have not been convicted of anything. There hasn't even been any finding of probable cause that they committed any crime - and that only takes a tiny bit of evidence. Do you even know anything about the people they are detaining at Gitmo?

Being shot at is a friendly gesture of piece.. No way that could be probable cause

[G-Prime]

"used a grenade launcher to subdue them"

This makes me giggle.

[Prosperity]

Being shot at is a friendly gesture of piece.. No way that could be probable cause

Don't you love circular arguments?

[Larry]

"used a grenade launcher to subdue them"

This makes me giggle.

Actually it's a good weapon for the mission. Props to the guy who made sure that those weapons, and the proper loads, were conveniently on hand.

As I understand it, one of the "rounds" for the 40mm grenade launcher is called a "stunbag". It's kind-of a cloth "beanbag" about the size of a baseball that's fired from the grenade launcher by the round's charge. Kind of a rubber bullet built into a really big shotgun shell. Non leathal (usually, although no doubt there's a chance the doodoo may happen), but it will knock you on your *** and break up a fight.

[vinva]

I'm muslim and I find that very offensive. You are so one sided in thinking. Not all muslims are bad and Islam does not promote any type of terrorist acts. There are just some people who misinterpret the Koran just as there are some that do the same with the other holy books.

Where are the non-extremist Muslim leaders then? Where is the reform movement? I agree that Islam, in itself, is not a violent religion...but I really don't think that there is any argument that modern Middle Eastern Islam is about as violent as it gets. When is the non-violent side going to do something and take responsibility for the acts done in the name of their God?

[nelms]

I'm muslim and I find that very offensive. You are so one sided in thinking. Not all muslims are bad and Islam does not promote any type of terrorist acts. There are just some people who misinterpret the Koran just as there are some that do the same with the other holy books.
If you're offended by the truth, then that's your problem. Islam is a religion of violence, I don't care what anyone says. It has been proven over and over again, by thousands and thousands of Muslims every day.

[vinva]

If you're offended by the truth, then that's your problem. Islam is a religion of violence, I don't care what anyone says. It has been proven over and over again, by thousands and thousands of Muslims every day.

So then Christianity is too...more violence has been done in the name of Christ throughout history then has been done in the name of Allah. We're just fortunate to have moved beyond it...hopefully Islam will soon too.

[nelms]

So then Christianity is too...more violence has been done in the name of Christ throughout history then has been done in the name of Allah. We're just fortunate to have moved beyond it...hopefully Islam will soon too.
You are absolutely correct. When I tell people that Islam is a religion of violence, they get offended. But, it is the truth. I'm not saying all Muslims support violence in the name of Islman, but a very large percentage do. The same could have been said about Christianity years ago. People should stop getting offended and start facing the truth.

[Madman_Mike]

Still dodging the "Find a place where the Constitution authorises kidnapping, torture, and warrantless searches" challenge, aren't you?

Still fighting the "As long as I can try to come up with a loophole or a re-phrasing, then I can pretend the Constitution doesn't prohibit something, and that's good enough".

You are the one re-phrasing. I just proved that. Keep trying to read somtthing into the constitution that isn't there though if it makes you feel better. :rolleyes:

[Prosperity]

But I don't see hundreds of thousands of Christians subscribing to the violent passages of the Bible (Timothy McVeigh aside. Just because that's always the retort of the left)
.

You can thank Liberalism

[Air Force Cane]

liberals have lost so often to President Bush- that they now hate him more than they do the Taliban and Al-queda in Iraq..

[Larry]

You are the one re-phrasing. I just proved that. Keep trying to read somtthing into the constitution that isn't there though if it makes you feel better. :rolleyes:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That is the entire 10th Ammendment.

What it says is that any power that isn't granted to the government, in the Constitution, is a power that the government doesn't have.

I'm not the one who has to find a sentance that says "The government cannot torture people, and yes, that includes 'stress positions' and 'environmental extremes', and yes, 'people' really does mean 'people', even if a Presidential memo has discovered a word that isn't in the Constitution, it still means 'everybody', anyway. And yes, that includes overseas, and government 'contractors' are included, too, and 'outsourcing' the torture to another country counts, too. And even when there's a New Kind of War"

I don't have to find a statement that's so clear that even you can't re-define a few words and say 'it doesn't count'.

If you want to claim that torture is Constitutional, then you have to find something, in the Constitution, that says it is.

The Founders didn't have to think of every single "but what if" situation, and prohibit it in advance or else it's OK if they didn't think of it. What they said was that if times change and something comes up that we didn't think of, then the government can't do it, untill after they ammend the Constitution to grant the government that power.