Registered: Aug 2001
Location: deep in the heart of...
Posts: 517

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september...,608016,00.html

to civil liberties disappearing with the forward momentum that human liberties are being violated.

An ACLU director said "[the president must] justify why the current system does not allow for the timely prosecution of those accused of terrorist activities. Absent such a compelling justification, today's order is deeply disturbing and further evidence that the administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy. Increasingly they appear willing to circumvent the requirements of the Bill of Rights."

the skies grow darker all the time.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10218

Bullshit.

1. There's already a precedent for this, by none other than FDR, upheld by the Supreme Court at the time , 7-0 I believe.

2. We're not talking about crimes and criminals of the variety we see in US courts on a day-to-day basis. These are non-Americans who perpetrated acts of war.

3. In no way have American's civil liberties been abridged.

All of this and more is said much better in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post from Wednesday.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 16

so let me get this straight. because lots of people died, and it was committed by non-us citizens, it's a military matter? what if a non-us citizen kills one american? what if it's committed by an american citizen? why should the process be any different? does the states want to convict innoccent people? why else use a system which lacks the checks and balances of the civilian courts?

as a non-us citizen this all sounds quite frightening...

and what if these attrocities are committed by americans? suddenly the offenders are no longer considered military personnel but are no considered civilians? what about all of those crazy militias? they consider themselves soldiers. why won't they be treated like them as well?

as for the op-ed piece, it seems more like bickering between left and right dating back to WWII then anything else. honestly, with that tone, he's far more interested in pissing off liberals then actually proving a point. sure he has some points, but he's defending the detention of people _allegedly_ (and who gets to decide that? is proof necessary?) related in some way to terrorists or people who "aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy." so, does this apply to companies that rival american ones on a bid? that would be harming the american economy... but i'm digressing. he defends these with the same justifications for the internment of over 100 000 japanese during WWII. why is it that it's ok if one president has done similar things in the past? it could still be wrong.


and can someone please explain to me why civil rights are considered leftist (apparently). when i think of civil rights i think of libertarians... who as far as i can tell are nothing like liberals. i always considered libertarians to be about as right wing as you get... eg the commies believe in defending the average, while the right defend the individual. sorry, we have different deffinitions for some of these things up here, not to mention that my ideas for these deffinitions are different even from the ones here.

anyway, i'm tired, and my brain's not working. i hope that at least some of this was moderatly coherent.

yt,
Orchard

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: deep in the heart of...
Posts: 517

quote:

---

3. In no way have American's civil liberties been abridged.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NZ
Posts: 877

National security has always trumped civil liberties. Proablably always will.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 16

quote:

---

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
National security has always trumped civil liberties. Proablably always will.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NZ
Posts: 877

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orchard


"Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither." --Ben Franklin

it didn't used to.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16824

ahhh the guardian what a piece of shit rag that is


on a side note...yes this administration wants some war time policy and its constitutionality can be debated though don’t think foreigners have the same rights as citizens do since they have no stock in the company so to speak and a lot less to lose if it is sabotaged.
MEANWHILE liberals in Oregon are trying to make it illegal to smoke in your fucking house cause it may offend you next door neighbors, and I believe the guy who headed this movement and got it illegal to smoke in the city park, using the children as his excuse, was arrested the day after an interview with Jon Stossel for child molestation that he pled guilty to.....priorities people...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 16

quote:

---

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
National security has always trumped civil liberties. Proablably always will.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16824

Wow, you’re highly emotional illogical and assumptive aren’t ya?
Cant get enough of these types…good for the bowels.
Where have all the realists gone?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 16

yeah, i tend to assume the worst when i'm drunk. it's called pessimism. i always thought that was realism... since life sucks and all.

but americans have get to realize that all of this is being caused by them trouncing around the world stirring shit up and then being offended when things go foul. (oh right... who funded bin Laden way back...)

the only reason i care about you guys throwing your rights away is that i live next door. and i also get annoyed when a country goes against what it in theory believes in. just change the theory for fuck sake. throw out the constitution. i just can't deal with all this damn hypocracy. (muffy: this theory stuff that i'm talking about is democracy and fairness. read the us constitution. read the writings of their founding fathers. it's not just me. i don't consider them either of the two)

damn cache... or maybe it's the proxy... fucking me up...

damn. i'm getting pretty drunk...

fuck you all! yay, that was fun!

PS, i'm starting a new country. it's called safeland. i will personally guarantee your safety. all you have to do is accept me as ruler for life. controlled economy... secret service... it'll be great. may have to lobotomize a few of you... but it'll be nice and secure. no one in or out. no in or out either... that may cause emotions and arguments... so you'll all get neuterd as well. don't worry, i'll keep your sperm and eggs on ice. (within a generation i'll call it The Orchard)

anyway, now i'm just being rediculous.:P

did i mention that i love you all?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NZ
Posts: 877

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orchard


i hope you mean in your life time, 'cause the states was founded on individual rights.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: NZ
Posts: 877

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orchard
(muffy: this theory stuff that i'm talking about is democracy and fairness. read the us constitution. read the writings of their founding fathers. it's not just me. i don't consider them either of the two)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18499

Lincoln suspended the writ in hundreds of cases. I know I've mentioned it several times, but it is true. And yes, it was unconstitutional. He also saved the Union with such tactics.

I'm not saying Bush is anything like Lincoln. However, I don't hear anyone in this thread taking the enemies of the U.S. to task for their divergence from the tenets of Islam. I am also not saying that we are very nice as a country. That's the nice thing about picking a side. I don't feel compelled to justify the behavior of my government on any other grounds than self-protection.

However, I cannot stand the Bushes. Sure Barbara looks like my grandmother. But they put out this whole Texas vibe, and they're Connecticut yankees, fer chrissakes. They're just politicos and businesspeople to the bone.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Boston, MA USA
Posts: 337

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orchard
.

but americans have get to realize that all of this is being caused by them trouncing around the world stirring shit up and then being offended when things go foul. (oh right... who funded bin Laden way back...)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18499

Somehow, because the U.S. wants so badly to be liked and has a foundation in civil liberties as its basis, we are held accountable to a different standard. We are responsible for the acts of others because they're anger at our policy is our responsibility, as are their actions. The fact that we support Israel is one reason. Nevermind that the Palestinians would love to exterminate the Israelis and drive them into the sea. I actually have very little emotional stake in our relations with Israel. But as long as it's a commitment we made as a country, we might as well stand behind it. The rest of the world, for the most part, was in on their creation - including the Soviets, whose support was critical at the time and who switched gears later on when they found they could get more mileage on the other side of the issue.

Even if my country was no better than the people we were fighting, my loyalty would still have to be with my country because I am under attack. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like us to act in such a way as to negate the need for future defense. But that would presuppose that all those other people out there who bear such venom for us as a society were operating according to some civilized code of conduct. They are not. I am not saying so much, "my country, right or wrong" as "my country, attack it, and you attack me, so you've polarized the issue and assured my side in this". That may be a subtle distinction, but it's real enough for me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16824

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orchard


i responded to this on some other thread, but i hope you mean in your life time, 'cause the states was founded on individual rights. the only point of the government was to protect those rights. which does not include stipping them all away during "war time."

Our rights are not "all being stripped away" genius, Americans are not subject to military tribunals people we are dealing with in a military action are. At best we can be accused of not treating POWs as we would our own citizens (Golly Gee)… and that trumps the rest of your assumptive, sickeningly ignorant ramblings in this statement so Ill stop there.


And again, the guardian is a good place to go get leftist propaganda. I hope you understand when you posted that it is little more than an opinion piece.
It isn’t a very widely respected new source.
This is not something new as G has already said.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

Sp00ky has a thread about the UK news sources here, but I would say that the Guardian is respected for honesty and probity (it isn't really owned by anyone, so there is independance from proprietor interference) but that it is left leaning. It has no party affiliation but is the only paper that many of the 'intellectuals' read. I find it annoying quite often but factually correct and unlike other papers when it does make an error they correct it publically.

But it is leftist, that is defintely true. I'd read it over the Times though, any day.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16824

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Sp00ky has a thread about the UK news sources here, but I would say that the Guardian is respected for honesty and probity (it isn't really owned by anyone,

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia

It doesn’t take a genius to read that rag and see how biased they are. Its really shameful, and laughable and cant understand why it would be "respected" as a news source. Imo of course.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

OK people chill pill moment. I don't like The Guardian perosnally. Not because its a 'rag' or because its 'leftsit' etc. I mainly dislike it because it soo fashionable. Would you beleive we actaully have a social grouping here that can be ddefined as 'Guardian Readers'.

But to be fair, the Guardian is a very honest and probing newspaper. Of course it has bias in pieces, find me a piece written in apaper or journal that does not.

I think though that it is important to not dismiss out of hand anything from a particular news source. The Guardian has many pieces in it hich do not fit in with the whole party poltical affiliation.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged