wtf is wrong with this administration

[kalster]

As Congress returned from summer recess the raging debate over this nation's immigration problem and policies continued unabated. The only major change that was accomplished before the Congress adjourned was the passage of legislation to strip non-citizens of the right to habeus corpus. This legislation will prevent those living in the United States legally, such as green card holders (residents), from any ability to challenge their arrest. The government may now arrest without cause, a warrant or any other form of due process, anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and hold them indefinitely without charges and without even acknowledging their arrest and detention. There is no longer any ability to seek redress for unlawful government actions in the courts for these non-citizens. While some may feel this has no impact on them personally, it is important to remember that approximately 10% of the U.S. population are legal resident aliens with green cards including many high level executives, scientists, and business leaders. This is not just something that will affect those here illegally or who are blue collar workers.


This is crazy, I came here to get my Masters, and have been in legal status for the past 5 years. these rules are completely ridiculous

 

[Gooberlx2]

My good friend's family is jewish, some of whom were off-the-boat German-jews during and after WWII. He mentioned to me that his great grandfather is reminded of the Gestapo by these new policies. Not trying to equate the two, I just find it sad that such bad memories/familiarities can be triggered by some of the policies our nation is passing.

 

[rchiu]

Yeap, that's right. Bush Admin found strong resistance from people who can vote on the policies of holding American people without going through judicial process. So now they pick on people who cannot vote.

:disgust:

 

[blackangst1]

Well, it's not quite as bad as you make it sound. The term used in the bill is "enemy combatant", and is clearly defined in the bill.

 

[Martin]

If you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Yeap, that's right. Bush Admin found strong resistance from people who can vote on the policies of holding American people without going through judicial process. So now they pick on people who cannot vote.

:disgust:

What citizen has been held with no judicial process that hasnt been proven to be an enemy combatant?

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: rchiu
Yeap, that's right. Bush Admin found strong resistance from people who can vote on the policies of holding American people without going through judicial process. So now they pick on people who cannot vote.

:disgust:

What citizen has been held with no judicial process that hasnt been proven to be an enemy combatant?

has there been a citizen held without judicial process in the US? i can't recall any off the top of my head.

 

[Pens1566]

Padilla was held for years without any.

 

[compnovice]

Great!! So now I can live in North Korea and feel I have more rights :disgust:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Padilla was held for years without any.

He was held 3 years before charges were filed. And do you by chance know WHY he was arrested? It was a clean arrest.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Padilla was held for years without any.

He was held 3 years before charges were filed. And do you by chance know WHY he was arrested? It was a clean arrest.

His original charges were thrown out after it finally got to a court. Doesn't seem so clean.

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: Martin
If you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about.

:laugh: I just pissed in my pants.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, it's not quite as bad as you make it sound. The term used in the bill is "enemy combatant", and is clearly defined in the bill.

It's still unconstitutional no matter WHAT term they use and how clearly it's defined. The constitution does NOT only apply to citizens, it clearly applies to legal resident aliens as well at the very least. And last time I checked, you can't be stripped of your constitutional rights just because the executive branch slaps a label on you.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, it's not quite as bad as you make it sound. The term used in the bill is "enemy combatant", and is clearly defined in the bill.

Heh, so who gets to define who is enemy combatant and without judicial process how does a alleged enemy combatant defend himself?

Oh wait, maybe whatever bush says is right and there can be no question about it...

 

[robphelan]

Originally posted by: Martin
If you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about.

this is a scary thing to state if you actually believe it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, it's not quite as bad as you make it sound. The term used in the bill is "enemy combatant", and is clearly defined in the bill.

Heh, so who gets to define who is enemy combatant and without judicial process how does a alleged enemy combatant defend himself?

Oh wait, maybe whatever bush says is right and there can be no question about it...

:roll:

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, it's not quite as bad as you make it sound. The term used in the bill is "enemy combatant", and is clearly defined in the bill.

Heh, so who gets to define who is enemy combatant and without judicial process how does a alleged enemy combatant defend himself?

Oh wait, maybe whatever bush says is right and there can be no question about it...

So if I kidnap and torture someone can I use the defense in court that I defined him as an enemy combatant and according to our own president that everything I did to that person is legal?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, it's not quite as bad as you make it sound. The term used in the bill is "enemy combatant", and is clearly defined in the bill.

Heh, so who gets to define who is enemy combatant and without judicial process how does a alleged enemy combatant defend himself?

Oh wait, maybe whatever bush says is right and there can be no question about it...

So if I kidnap and torture someone can I use the defense in court that I defined him as an enemy combatant and according to our own president that everything I did to that person is legal?

When we start picking up INNOCENT civilians and doing it, I'll jump to your side. In the meantime, the one civilian we have applied this to WAS guilty as h3ll.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, it's not quite as bad as you make it sound. The term used in the bill is "enemy combatant", and is clearly defined in the bill.

Heh, so who gets to define who is enemy combatant and without judicial process how does a alleged enemy combatant defend himself?

Oh wait, maybe whatever bush says is right and there can be no question about it...

:roll:

Right back atcha fanboi. :roll:

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Padilla was held for years without any.

He was held 3 years before charges were filed. And do you by chance know WHY he was arrested? It was a clean arrest.

His original charges were thrown out after it finally got to a court. Doesn't seem so clean.

interesting. apparently he was originally arrested as a "material witness." after a month he was listed as an enemy combatant. i'm guessing for non-cooperation.

after the possibility of him being held indefinately by ruling of an appeals court; the supreme court overrules and has padilla charged in miami. the charge is that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. one of the main issues that is brought up is that the administration is using one set of facts to justify holding Padilla without charges and another set to persuade a grand jury in Florida to indict him.

 

[compnovice]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

When we start picking up INNOCENT civilians and doing it, I'll jump to your side. In the meantime, the one civilian we have applied this to WAS guilty as h3ll.

How will you tell if the defendent is innocent if he is not given a trail..

And why exactly do you need to hold a person WITHOUT charges? To lock him up in solitary confinement to coerce a confession?

This is a violation of fundamental right of any person. I know its not the citizens they are targetting but even LEGAL residents should have the right to trials.

On hindsight, would you endorse the same measure for citizens?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: robphelan

Originally posted by: Martin
If you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about.

this is a scary thing to state if you actually believe it.

Not the word I would have used.

Nevermind the fact you could end up in a 5 year legal battle (while held in custody, no less) costing 100's of thousands of dollars. Oh, and WE all know we've never put an innocent man in jail,right!

 

[ProfJohn]

From what I understand Padilla was named by the mastermind of 9-11 during his interrogation. Now I can?t imagine that this terrorist just picked some name out of thin air in order to get out of being ?water boarded? again.

Padilla wanted to create a dirty bomb and use it to kill or injure thousands of Americans.
The reason he was held for so long without being charged was that the only way to charge him would be to use the evidence they got from Mr. 9-11 and they did not want that in a court of law.

They didn?t just pick some poor guy off the street and throw him in jail cause he wasn?t wearing green on Saint Patty?s day.

Padilla is also an idiot who thought he could separate plutonium for a dirty bomb by placing it in a bucket at the end of rope and swinging it over his head really fast.

BTW: here is a great thing for straighttalker? ?A related conspiracy theory claims he was likely a CIA agent and that the fact he is being held as an enemy combatant is part of a cover up of his involvement in the Oklahoma City bombings while a CIA agent.?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: robphelan

Originally posted by: Martin
If you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about.

this is a scary thing to state if you actually believe it.

It is nothing scary, President Bush has a big.. how you say? how you say? Err, khram, khram. If you vote for him, your family will have many good years, but if you don't... you will be sorry.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
From what I understand Padilla was named by the mastermind of 9-11 during his interrogation. Now I can?t imagine that this terrorist just picked some name out of thin air in order to get out of being ?water boarded? again.

Padilla wanted to create a dirty bomb and use it to kill or injure thousands of Americans.
The reason he was held for so long without being charged was that the only way to charge him would be to use the evidence they got from Mr. 9-11 and they did not want that in a court of law.

They didn?t just pick some poor guy off the street and throw him in jail cause he wasn?t wearing green on Saint Patty?s day.

Padilla is also an idiot who thought he could separate plutonium for a dirty bomb by placing it in a bucket at the end of rope and swinging it over his head really fast.

BTW: here is a great thing for straighttalker? ?A related conspiracy theory claims he was likely a CIA agent and that the fact he is being held as an enemy combatant is part of a cover up of his involvement in the Oklahoma City bombings while a CIA agent.?

This made me LOL hahahahaha