Waterboarding was okay in 2002

[spike]

Ever see a whipped dog?

Yeah, I'm replying to one right now.

 

[spike]

You mean like calling other posters NAZIS?

Hey Jim go back and read that thread and see who started the insults.

Also, I didn't call you a Nazi.

Have you been sick? Haven't seen you around here since the 20th.

I was at a convention.

 

[jimpeel]

Hey Jim go back and read that thread and see who started the insults.

Also, I didn't call you a Nazi.

I was at a convention.

I see. Saying "you'd make a good Nazi." is not calling someone a Nazi.

If it walks like a duck ...

 

[spike]

You walk like a duck?

 

[Gonz]

OK...don't make it two.

 

[jimpeel]

Hey Jim go back and read that thread and see who started the insults.

Actually, the insults were in full swing when I stepped in HERE. This is also where your argument falls apart that I don't want people to be able to protest.

Remember this?

He is speaking of the ability of all people to have the same rights to free political speech. Part of that speech goes to access; and that parking space represents access -- access for one but not for all. Code Pink is a 501c4 organization by the way.

 

[spike]

Actually, the insults were in full swing when I stepped in HERE.

Look in that thread and look in this thread and notice how you tend to insult people that have not insulted you. It's a crutch of yours.

As far as being against the protesting look at post #154 and below. You even go anti-democracy.

 

[spike]

OK...don't make it two.

Hey Gonz let's get back on topic a little.

Seems you missed the memo that US Citizens, Canadian, and whoever else they feel like classifying as an "enemy combatant" may be held indefinitely. Even if they weren't involved in any "combat".

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/[/QUOTE]

If your neighbor who had a grudge accused you of being a terrorist should the government be able to hold you indefinitely without trial?

 

[Gonz]

if they are deemed a threat to national security

I think you're safe.

 

[spike]

Without habeus you only have to be suspected or accused to be held indefinitely. You don't have to be an actual threat.

But what do you care about American citizens being held without trial right?

I'm sure it also seems reasonable to you to be able to invade countries that are no threat and imprison their people without a trial. Probably wouldn't mind if Canada did it to America and held you.

 

[Gonz]

If I was inciting mayhem or death to Canadians, it would be fair enough.

IN case you haven't noticed, we've released many detainees...the situation surrounding their release is an unknown. Then again, this is war.

 

[Cerise]

Seems you missed the memo that US Citizens, Canadian, and whoever else they feel like classifying as an "enemy combatant" may be held indefinitely. Even if they weren't involved in any "combat".

 

[spike]

If I was inciting mayhem or death to Canadians, it would be fair enough.

All those Iraqis did that? Must have missed it.

IN case you haven't noticed, we've released many detainees...the situation surrounding their release is an unknown. Then again, this is war.

We're still holding many detainee's without trial. Of course you seem to be ok with that, even if they're American citizens.

Also, war was never declared.

 

[spike]

Bullshit?

If you click on the link below you find that it's not.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/

 

[Cerise]

A CNN story does not an Executive Order make.

Seems you missed the memo that US Citizens, Canadian, and whoever else they feel like classifying as an "enemy combatant" may be held indefinitely. Even if they weren't involved in any "combat".

Link to the E.O. that determines that anyone who, although they are not engaged in hostilities as part of an armed conflict against the United States and is considered a lawful enemy combatant, can be detained indefinately?

 

[spike]

More info for you.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31724.pdf

 

[Cerise]

Bullshit?

If you click on the link below you find that it's not.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/

Please highilight the part that says

.... US Citizens, Canadian, and whoever else they feel like classifying as an "enemy combatant" may be held indefinitely. Even if they weren't involved in any "combat".

 

[jimpeel]

Look in that thread and look in this thread and notice how you tend to insult people that have not insulted you. It's a crutch of yours.

As far as being against the protesting look at post #154 and below. You even go anti-democracy.

I AM anti-democracy you silly boy. Democracy is mob rule. 50% +1 and you win -- or lose. It was soundly rejected by the Founding Fathers of this country as a non-viable form of government.

 

[spike]

Please highilight the part that says

I'm not sure how much clearer it can be.

Here's some more info.

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former gang member and U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and a month later designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush. The government contends that Padilla trained at al Qaeda camps and was planning to blow up apartment buildings in the United States. Padilla has been held without trial in a U.S. naval brig for more than three years, and his case has ignited a fierce battle over the balance between civil liberties and the government's power to fight terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. A host of civil liberties groups and former attorney general Janet Reno weighed in on Padilla's behalf, calling his detention illegal and arguing that the president does not have unchecked power to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

 

[spike]

I AM anti-democracy you silly boy. Democracy is mob rule. 50% +1 and you win -- or lose. It was soundly rejected by the Founding Fathers of this country as a non-viable form of government.

So you are against Bush trying to "spread Democracy".