Why do I have to give up explicit Constitutional rights?

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
What is really disgusting here is that 2 people actually have the audacity to try to IGNORE something already established... Bush came out and admitted to domestic spying without a warrant! If people are so ignorant and afraid to admit what is ALREADY KNOWN, how can anyone actually debate real issues affecting the country? Burying your head in the sand is not the answer.

OF COURSE IT IS DOMESTIC!!!

If an INTERNATIONAL call originates INSIDE the US and that call goes OUTSIDE the US to Syria the NSA cannot tap a line in Syria. BUT they can tap the phone that originated the call INSIDE the US.

Now how many people have actually claimed that thier calls to mom and dad 3 states over have been tapped? None that I know of.


So you claim that those of us who are ok with this tapping of certain INTERNATIONAL calls are just to ignorant to see the bigger picture which is that eventually ALL calls will be tapped without warrants. Isn't that exactly the same as what we say about another terrorist attack? I mean come on we can all agree that there WILL be another...or are we paranoid? Kinda like you and your "they are going to tap into me ordering a pizza!"

Who is the chicken little again?

Listen, the debate in congress is over whether it is legal to spy on americans! It isn't over whether or not it is wiretapping american citizens or not! ... Congress and Bush aren't arguing that these calls are international, and not domestic. It has been established that it is domestic spying. Bush claims he has special war powers allowing him to temporarily ignore the bill of rights. Why would he have to argue this if he WASN'T breaking the 4th amendment? Get a clue.

It has nothing to do with paranoia. It has to do with breaking the 4th amendment GUARANTEEING the safety against WARRANTLESS searches.. which has been broken,. Quit trying to turn this into a separate arguement. It is a clear violation of the bill of rights.

You are right, the Constitution as it is written is final, it is not nor was it ever intended to be a living document that grows with the changing of the times.

Everything else does, our laws, our economy, the world around us...but not the Constitutuon..no sir...keep it as it was originally written, it IS NOT nor was it EVER open for interpretation, there is no room for growth or expansion, simply read the words as they were written.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fear is the mind killer.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
What is really disgusting here is that 2 people actually have the audacity to try to IGNORE something already established... Bush came out and admitted to domestic spying without a warrant! If people are so ignorant and afraid to admit what is ALREADY KNOWN, how can anyone actually debate real issues affecting the country? Burying your head in the sand is not the answer.

OF COURSE IT IS DOMESTIC!!!

If an INTERNATIONAL call originates INSIDE the US and that call goes OUTSIDE the US to Syria the NSA cannot tap a line in Syria. BUT they can tap the phone that originated the call INSIDE the US.

Now how many people have actually claimed that thier calls to mom and dad 3 states over have been tapped? None that I know of.


So you claim that those of us who are ok with this tapping of certain INTERNATIONAL calls are just to ignorant to see the bigger picture which is that eventually ALL calls will be tapped without warrants. Isn't that exactly the same as what we say about another terrorist attack? I mean come on we can all agree that there WILL be another...or are we paranoid? Kinda like you and your "they are going to tap into me ordering a pizza!"

Who is the chicken little again?

Listen, the debate in congress is over whether it is legal to spy on americans! It isn't over whether or not it is wiretapping american citizens or not! ... Congress and Bush aren't arguing that these calls are international, and not domestic. It has been established that it is domestic spying. Bush claims he has special war powers allowing him to temporarily ignore the bill of rights. Why would he have to argue this if he WASN'T breaking the 4th amendment? Get a clue.

It has nothing to do with paranoia. It has to do with breaking the 4th amendment GUARANTEEING the safety against WARRANTLESS searches.. which has been broken,. Quit trying to turn this into a separate arguement. It is a clear violation of the bill of rights.

You are right, the Constitution as it is written is final, it is not nor was it ever intended to be a living document that grows with the changing of the times.

Everything else does, our laws, our economy, the world around us...but not the Constitutuon..no sir...keep it as it was originally written, it IS NOT nor was it EVER open for interpretation, there is no room for growth or expansion, simply read the words as they were written.

Except for the whole Ammendment thing.

 

[Cerb]

I must not fear.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Fear is the mind killer.

Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone I will (???) to see its path. Where the fear has(?) gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Mmmm, Herbert...

 

[BlueFlamme]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I found this while responding to some dolt on another board. It looks like the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are greatly less than Fido turning on me. I think that we should euthenise all dogs now. Has anyone shown these stats to Bush? I'm sure that he will agree. He has to protect the citizens!!!

I would rather take my chances with OBL talking to Sheik on the phone without them being eavesdropped on illegally, than to give up my explicit constitutional rights. If Bush knows that Sheik is an ally of OBL, he can just get a freaking warrant.

The OP is devoid of intellectual thought applied to the Topic Title : Why do I have to give up explicit Constitutional rights?

You failed to mention a single constitutional right you feel has been given up, nor have you support it as an explicit constitutional right.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: BlueFlamme

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I found this while responding to some dolt on another board. It looks like the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are greatly less than Fido turning on me. I think that we should euthenise all dogs now. Has anyone shown these stats to Bush? I'm sure that he will agree. He has to protect the citizens!!!

I would rather take my chances with OBL talking to Sheik on the phone without them being eavesdropped on illegally, than to give up my explicit constitutional rights. If Bush knows that Sheik is an ally of OBL, he can just get a freaking warrant.

The OP is devoid of intellectual thought applied to the Topic Title : Why do I have to give up explicit Constitutional rights?

You failed to mention a single constitutional right you feel has been given up, nor have you support it as an explicit constitutional right.

The constitutional right that I am being forced to give up is implied through current events and the connection that I make to them by declaring:

I would rather take my chances with OBL talking to Sheik on the phone without them being eavesdropped on illegally, than to give up my explicit constitutional rights. If Bush knows that Sheik is an ally of OBL, he can just get a freaking warrant.

If you would like to read the first page of posts to see it spelled out in greater detail, please, feel free.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87
These calls originated from outside the US, a slightly different set of circumstances than what the founding fathers envisioned, I am sure.

How utterly lacking in principle.

I'll bet you're one of those conservative-judge fanboys who spouts the "original intent", "strict construction", "no legislating from the bench" mantra whenever a "liberal" decision is rendered or a right-wing Supreme Court nominee comes before the Senate.

Where did that wonderful principle go when you found that the Constitution rather explicitly says that that the domiciles, communications, and private information of Americans may NOT be surveilled, searched, or otherwise intruded upon without a warrant issued pursuant to probable cause?

Has anyone ever told you which of your two faces is uglier?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: BlueFlamme

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I found this while responding to some dolt on another board. It looks like the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are greatly less than Fido turning on me. I think that we should euthenise all dogs now. Has anyone shown these stats to Bush? I'm sure that he will agree. He has to protect the citizens!!!

I would rather take my chances with OBL talking to Sheik on the phone without them being eavesdropped on illegally, than to give up my explicit constitutional rights. If Bush knows that Sheik is an ally of OBL, he can just get a freaking warrant.

The OP is devoid of intellectual thought applied to the Topic Title : Why do I have to give up explicit Constitutional rights?

You failed to mention a single constitutional right you feel has been given up, nor have you support it as an explicit constitutional right.

Sorry, but if you can't figure it out on your own, you are unlikely to be able to contribute much to the discussion. Stay away.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
What is really disgusting here is that 2 people actually have the audacity to try to IGNORE something already established... Bush came out and admitted to domestic spying without a warrant! If people are so ignorant and afraid to admit what is ALREADY KNOWN, how can anyone actually debate real issues affecting the country? Burying your head in the sand is not the answer.

OF COURSE IT IS DOMESTIC!!!

If an INTERNATIONAL call originates INSIDE the US and that call goes OUTSIDE the US to Syria the NSA cannot tap a line in Syria. BUT they can tap the phone that originated the call INSIDE the US.

Now how many people have actually claimed that thier calls to mom and dad 3 states over have been tapped? None that I know of.


So you claim that those of us who are ok with this tapping of certain INTERNATIONAL calls are just to ignorant to see the bigger picture which is that eventually ALL calls will be tapped without warrants. Isn't that exactly the same as what we say about another terrorist attack? I mean come on we can all agree that there WILL be another...or are we paranoid? Kinda like you and your "they are going to tap into me ordering a pizza!"

Who is the chicken little again?

Listen, the debate in congress is over whether it is legal to spy on americans! It isn't over whether or not it is wiretapping american citizens or not! ... Congress and Bush aren't arguing that these calls are international, and not domestic. It has been established that it is domestic spying. Bush claims he has special war powers allowing him to temporarily ignore the bill of rights. Why would he have to argue this if he WASN'T breaking the 4th amendment? Get a clue.

It has nothing to do with paranoia. It has to do with breaking the 4th amendment GUARANTEEING the safety against WARRANTLESS searches.. which has been broken,. Quit trying to turn this into a separate arguement. It is a clear violation of the bill of rights.

You are right, the Constitution as it is written is final, it is not nor was it ever intended to be a living document that grows with the changing of the times.

Everything else does, our laws, our economy, the world around us...but not the Constitutuon..no sir...keep it as it was originally written, it IS NOT nor was it EVER open for interpretation, there is no room for growth or expansion, simply read the words as they were written.

Except for the whole Ammendment thing.

Exactly, so it is ever changing. But is it reasonable to expect that every time a law needs to be interpreted that we must amend the Constitution? I think not.

That is what the Judiciary is for. Now as far as I know I hear a lot of citizens crying foul on this whole thing, but I have yet to see or hear a judge rule on it either yay or nay....unless I missed something.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
For people like Train, you have to be personally affected by acts before you start to care. When was I last attacked by a terrorist? Never, hence zero of my tax money should go to HLS, and definitely none should go to Iraq (which has zero to do with anything security related). Right?

Did I say personally?

And WHICH rights has SOMEONE had violated, for which I am supposed to care about?

Jose Padilla has had his right to a swift trial violated. He had his right to legal counsel violated. He had his right to know the charges and his accuser violated. Do you care?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
For people like Train, you have to be personally affected by acts before you start to care. When was I last attacked by a terrorist? Never, hence zero of my tax money should go to HLS, and definitely none should go to Iraq (which has zero to do with anything security related). Right?

Did I say personally?

And WHICH rights has SOMEONE had violated, for which I am supposed to care about?

Jose Padilla has had his right to a swift trial violated. He had his right to legal counsel violated. He had his right to know the charges and his accuser violated. Do you care?

When confronted with the truth the apologists and fluffers crawl back to their holes...to no ones surprise. As I stated earlier in this thread Train doesn't care, hence he will never put forth the effort to try and understand.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
For people like Train, you have to be personally affected by acts before you start to care. When was I last attacked by a terrorist? Never, hence zero of my tax money should go to HLS, and definitely none should go to Iraq (which has zero to do with anything security related). Right?

Did I say personally?

And WHICH rights has SOMEONE had violated, for which I am supposed to care about?

Jose Padilla has had his right to a swift trial violated. He had his right to legal counsel violated. He had his right to know the charges and his accuser violated. Do you care?

And all court filings for Padilla have been denied, apparently being classified as an "enemy combatant" changes things, and the court agrees.

And OrByte adds some more valuable commentary, all the while calling anyone he doesnt agree with a troll.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
For people like Train, you have to be personally affected by acts before you start to care. When was I last attacked by a terrorist? Never, hence zero of my tax money should go to HLS, and definitely none should go to Iraq (which has zero to do with anything security related). Right?

Did I say personally?

And WHICH rights has SOMEONE had violated, for which I am supposed to care about?

Jose Padilla has had his right to a swift trial violated. He had his right to legal counsel violated. He had his right to know the charges and his accuser violated. Do you care?

And all court filings for Padilla have been denied, apparently being classified as an "enemy combatant" changes things, and the court agrees.

And OrByte adds some more valuable commentary, all the while calling anyone he doesnt agree with a troll.

Oh so you ARE around? and here I was thinking you don't have anything to add. So, did you manage to come up with a response to several of the questions posed to you in this thread?

........thats what I thought.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
For people like Train, you have to be personally affected by acts before you start to care. When was I last attacked by a terrorist? Never, hence zero of my tax money should go to HLS, and definitely none should go to Iraq (which has zero to do with anything security related). Right?

Did I say personally?

And WHICH rights has SOMEONE had violated, for which I am supposed to care about?

Jose Padilla has had his right to a swift trial violated. He had his right to legal counsel violated. He had his right to know the charges and his accuser violated. Do you care?

And all court filings for Padilla have been denied, apparently being classified as an "enemy combatant" changes things, and the court agrees.

And OrByte adds some more valuable commentary, all the while calling anyone he doesnt agree with a troll.

Well, there's one american citizen that had his rights taken away. Maybe we'll all be declared enemy combatants.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
For people like Train, you have to be personally affected by acts before you start to care. When was I last attacked by a terrorist? Never, hence zero of my tax money should go to HLS, and definitely none should go to Iraq (which has zero to do with anything security related). Right?

Did I say personally?

And WHICH rights has SOMEONE had violated, for which I am supposed to care about?

Jose Padilla has had his right to a swift trial violated. He had his right to legal counsel violated. He had his right to know the charges and his accuser violated. Do you care?

And all court filings for Padilla have been denied, apparently being classified as an "enemy combatant" changes things, and the court agrees.

And OrByte adds some more valuable commentary, all the while calling anyone he doesnt agree with a troll.

Oh so you ARE around? and here I was thinking you don't have anything to add. So, did you manage to come up with a response to several of the questions posed to you in this thread?

........thats what I thought.

I dont repsond to trolls

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Maybe we'll all be declared enemy combatants.

On this forum, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Maybe we'll all be declared enemy combatants.

On this forum, I wouldn't be surprised.

Nice choice for the quote. Maybe you could comment on the other part. You know, the one that answers the one you've been asking throughout this whole thread. Come on, shock us.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
For people like Train, you have to be personally affected by acts before you start to care. When was I last attacked by a terrorist? Never, hence zero of my tax money should go to HLS, and definitely none should go to Iraq (which has zero to do with anything security related). Right?

Did I say personally?

And WHICH rights has SOMEONE had violated, for which I am supposed to care about?

Jose Padilla has had his right to a swift trial violated. He had his right to legal counsel violated. He had his right to know the charges and his accuser violated. Do you care?

And all court filings for Padilla have been denied, apparently being classified as an "enemy combatant" changes things, and the court agrees.

And OrByte adds some more valuable commentary, all the while calling anyone he doesnt agree with a troll.

Oh so you ARE around? and here I was thinking you don't have anything to add. So, did you manage to come up with a response to several of the questions posed to you in this thread?

........thats what I thought.

I dont repsond to trolls

i.e. no you have no answers, you are unwilling to go educate yourself on any issues, you would rather post stupid inflammatory remarks and live your life with blinders on. You divert/ignore/personally attack any opposing view...oh and you are always right in your little mind.

I got it, thanks for playing.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Maybe we'll all be declared enemy combatants.

On this forum, I wouldn't be surprised.

Nice choice for the quote. Maybe you could comment on the other part. You know, the one that answers the one you've been asking throughout this whole thread. Come on, shock us.

Whats so hard to understand? He is classified as an enemy combatant, therefore is under a different set of laws, similar to a POW. The geneva conventions (which wouldn't apply to him, but were used anyways) dont put time limits on how long you can hold someone before a trial.

 

[Pens1566]

American citizen + made up label = no more civil rights. Ok, now I got it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
For people like Train, you have to be personally affected by acts before you start to care. When was I last attacked by a terrorist? Never, hence zero of my tax money should go to HLS, and definitely none should go to Iraq (which has zero to do with anything security related). Right?

Did I say personally?

And WHICH rights has SOMEONE had violated, for which I am supposed to care about?

Jose Padilla has had his right to a swift trial violated. He had his right to legal counsel violated. He had his right to know the charges and his accuser violated. Do you care?

And all court filings for Padilla have been denied, apparently being classified as an "enemy combatant" changes things, and the court agrees.

And OrByte adds some more valuable commentary, all the while calling anyone he doesnt agree with a troll.

Do you bother to find out any information about topics before you reply or do you just say whatever you think will benefit "your side"?

Let's find out what an "enemy combatant" is, shall we?

From Wikipedia

There are strong indications the Bush Administration?s policy of classification and detention of persons designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" is based on a presumption that the Geneva Conventions and Constitutional safeguards are an obstacle in the pursuit of the ?war on terror?.[5]

So, you have the Bush administration playing semantics to define people's classifications so that they can skirt domestic and international standards/laws.

Here's a little timeline on Padilla's detention from a "source you would trust"....FoxNews:

June 9, 2002: Padilla is listed as an "enemy combatant" and transferred to the Defense Department.

Dec. 4, 2002: U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey rules that a federal court has authority to decide whether Padilla was properly detained as an enemy combatant.

Dec. 18, 2003: The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals orders Padilla to be released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts.

Jan. 22, 2004: The 2nd Circuit Court of appeals agrees to suspend its ruling after the Bush administration appeals the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

March 3, 2004: Lawyers for Padilla meet with him for the first time since his incarceration at a naval brig in June 2002.

Sept. 9, 2005: A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the government can continue to hold Padilla indefinitely.

Oct. 25, 2005: Padilla asks the Supreme Court to limit the government's power to hold him and other U.S. terror suspects indefinitely and without charges. The Bush administration's deadline for filing arguments is Nov. 28.

Nov. 22, 2005: Padilla is indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. The charges do not include any allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot or other plans for U.S. attacks.

Notice any pattern there? It seems that the courts were ruling against the Bush administration until the 4th Circuit appeal. Then Padilla's attorney's file a motion to be heard by the SCOTUS. Bush admin has until Nov. 28th to file their motions and lo and behold....less than a week from that deadline they charge him!! Amazingly, the indictment doesn't pertain a single reference to their claims about him attempting to use a dirty bomb or any other attack. Huh...who'd have thunk that one?

Side note.....three days prior to another date with the SCOTUS regarding their refusal to even allow Padilla to talk with an attorney, the Bush admin allowed him that "right" and the case was never heard? Good will on the Bushie's part? Or just a way of avoiding a ruling that might have limited some of their perceived infinate power? You decide.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Todd33
For people like Train, you have to be personally affected by acts before you start to care. When was I last attacked by a terrorist? Never, hence zero of my tax money should go to HLS, and definitely none should go to Iraq (which has zero to do with anything security related). Right?

Did I say personally?

And WHICH rights has SOMEONE had violated, for which I am supposed to care about?

Jose Padilla has had his right to a swift trial violated. He had his right to legal counsel violated. He had his right to know the charges and his accuser violated. Do you care?

And all court filings for Padilla have been denied, apparently being classified as an "enemy combatant" changes things, and the court agrees.

And OrByte adds some more valuable commentary, all the while calling anyone he doesnt agree with a troll.

Do you bother to find out any information about topics before you reply or do you just say whatever you think will benefit "your side"?

Let's find out what an "enemy combatant" is, shall we?

From Wikipedia

There are strong indications the Bush Administration?s policy of classification and detention of persons designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" is based on a presumption that the Geneva Conventions and Constitutional safeguards are an obstacle in the pursuit of the ?war on terror?.[5]

So, you have the Bush administration playing semantics to define people's classifications so that they can skirt domestic and international standards/laws.

Here's a little timeline on Padilla's detention from a "source you would trust"....FoxNews:

June 9, 2002: Padilla is listed as an "enemy combatant" and transferred to the Defense Department.

Dec. 4, 2002: U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey rules that a federal court has authority to decide whether Padilla was properly detained as an enemy combatant.

Dec. 18, 2003: The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals orders Padilla to be released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts.

Jan. 22, 2004: The 2nd Circuit Court of appeals agrees to suspend its ruling after the Bush administration appeals the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

March 3, 2004: Lawyers for Padilla meet with him for the first time since his incarceration at a naval brig in June 2002.

Sept. 9, 2005: A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the government can continue to hold Padilla indefinitely.

Oct. 25, 2005: Padilla asks the Supreme Court to limit the government's power to hold him and other U.S. terror suspects indefinitely and without charges. The Bush administration's deadline for filing arguments is Nov. 28.

Nov. 22, 2005: Padilla is indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. The charges do not include any allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot or other plans for U.S. attacks.

Notice any pattern there? It seems that the courts were ruling against the Bush administration until the 4th Circuit appeal. Then Padilla's attorney's file a motion to be heard by the SCOTUS. Bush admin has until Nov. 28th to file their motions and lo and behold....less than a week from that deadline they charge him!! Amazingly, the indictment doesn't pertain a single reference to their claims about him attempting to use a dirty bomb or any other attack. Huh...who'd have thunk that one?

Side note.....three days prior to another date with the SCOTUS regarding their refusal to even allow Padilla to talk with an attorney, the Bush admin allowed him that "right" and the case was never heard? Good will on the Bushie's part? Or just a way of avoiding a ruling that might have limited some of their perceived infinate power? You decide.

Bah, all you did was google it!!!!

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Notice any pattern there?

Good prosecutors?

It seems that the courts were ruling against the Bush administration until the 4th Circuit appeal.

And what does that prove, the final ruling was, yes, they can hold him

Then Padilla's attorney's file a motion to be heard by the SCOTUS. Bush admin has until Nov. 28th to file their motions and lo and behold....less than a week from that deadline they charge him!!

Getting something done BEFORE a dealine is bad? explain that one

Amazingly, the indictment doesn't pertain a single reference to their claims about him attempting to use a dirty bomb or any other attack. Huh...who'd have thunk that one?

Prosecutors are bound to charge what appears in the press or even what they originally claimed?

Side note.....three days prior to another date with the SCOTUS regarding their refusal to even allow Padilla to talk with an attorney, the Bush admin allowed him that "right" and the case was never heard? Good will on the Bushie's part? Or just a way of avoiding a ruling that might have limited some of their perceived infinate power? You decide.

 

[RightIsWrong]

LOL.....I know. Damn me for not having all of the facts stored in some memory bank to retrieve for the troll's satisfaction. Maybe Train could learn to use google. It might help him actually find some other right wing boards so that he can find out what the talking points are on the subject. Not that those all haven't been blown away also, but he might be able to put more than a single line response together.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Maybe we'll all be declared enemy combatants.

On this forum, I wouldn't be surprised.

Nice choice for the quote. Maybe you could comment on the other part. You know, the one that answers the one you've been asking throughout this whole thread. Come on, shock us.

Whats so hard to understand? He is classified as an enemy combatant, therefore is under a different set of laws, similar to a POW. The geneva conventions (which wouldn't apply to him, but were used anyways) dont put time limits on how long you can hold someone before a trial.

Yeah being an American Citizen didn't help him much, even with his own government. What happened to him can happen to any of us.