Just watch this
I have nothing to add... except that passion and intelligence are a good combination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ao0RrXHZEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ao0RrXHZEk
posted by Voodoo at 10:15 AM
Sunday, October 22, 2006
About Me
- Name: Voodoo
- Location: Thornton, Colorado, United States
I'm a geek, plain and simple. I used to fence, I play poker when I can, and am learning to play lacrosse. I also work WAY too much.
Previous Posts
- My car is in
- It's started
- Been a couple of days...
- Warning : Foul language and threats of violence ahead
- This is a MUST READ
- Massive happiness
- A tiny bit proud, a tiny bit miffed
- Bad Knee day
- Knee Report and Star Trek
- Gleee, and Booooo
12 Comments:
"Why listen to the bile and the hatred that comes from that."
How do you consider a well thought out and expressed opinion as bile and hatred? Your comment seems awfully knee jerk.
Because I've heard more hatred towards the president and his party from Mr. Olbermann than anything else. I'll agree, his arguments are beautifully dressed up, but I think they're empty.
He uses his woeful program to do nothing but launch attacks at his ideological enemies.
Ahhh, now that's what I want to know. Do you view the stripping of Habeous Corpus (I can't spell it.. sorry) an empty item in our society. History has proven it to be anything but.
I have no problem denying a right to people that never had it to begin with.
Enemy combatants in our current conflict are NOT American citizens, therefore have no legal ground to employ the Constitution in their defense.
The problem with that logic is that without HC, there is no way to prove that you AREN'T an enemy combatant.
Are you telling me that if a German... say one of Christoph's relatives... came into this country and was wrongfully accused and locked up without trial, that becuase they aren't American they don't have the rights to defend themselves?
There has to be some form of due process to prove guilt. Or are all foregners guilty until proven innocent (not that they are entitled to the chance by your logic.)
Not at all. Under the law, Christoph's lawyer would be able to petition for a military tribunal, and would be able to present evidence as to why his client (the imprisoned relative) was being held improperly. The tribunal would convene and decide whether or not a mistake had been made; should they rule against the defendant, the accused could appeal to the US DC Federal Appeals court, and ultimatly the Supreme Court.
There IS due process. It's just being kept out of civilian channels, to protect what could be vital US intelligence assets. (Not that you care about those.)
The flaw I see in your logic there is that Christoph or his lawer would be notified of the "arrest."
Where does this notification take place? I assume that a "enemy combatant" isn't allowd to contact relatives to protect intelligence assets. How would anyone even know to petition?
As Regan put it, "Trust, but verify", I don't see how anyone is able to verify the process you describe.
And as to your backhand comment, I DO care about US intelligence assets, I just care MORE about human rights. It's frankly what true freedom is all about.
Here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Rebuttal
You are ASSIGNED a lawyer, or you could hire one (I'm sure the ACLU would be drooling over themselves to help out pro bono). I'm fairly certain they'll be in touch with the family, to at least get a deposition as to the sterling character of the arrested. So either your lawyer or the one assigned to you by the JAG corps will notify the family.
As to my backhand comment, you seem to be handing out civil rights to people under the Constitution and Geneva Conventions when they have absolutely no right to either.
You're crying "human rights." Please tell me what gives people these rights you espouse.
"Please tell me what gives people these rights you espouse. "
Simple... When I read the Constitution, I hold it up to the world and say "these are the rules that I live by. They are how I will behave"
I do not hold it up and say "These rules do not apply to YOU. You will never have these and we'll treat you however we want."
Also, the 14th ammendment refers to not passing laws that forbid these rights to "persons", not "citizens." I know it's not 100% applicable. But you'd think that in an amendmemt about WHO makes up a citizen that wording would be pretty clear.
So...if someone doesn't want to live by the rules of the Constitution...then what?
Try reading a different founding document, and see what the Founding Fathers said about what grants rights, and what protects them.
"So...if someone doesn't want to live by the rules of the Constitution...then what?"
Then you are a shitty american.
If you are discussing non Americans, in what way did I claim that I think anyone but Americans should live by the constitution? I think you should go back and re-read my writings, you seem to have misread them.
If you are talking about the "god" of the founding fathers, we are going to open the whole can of worms where you are going to claim that this nation is based on christian principals.
I'm not going to get into that argument becuase the treaty of tripoli pretty much put it to rest with very clear language.
A great deal of the founding fathers were deists. "god" is just a creator to them, not the active christian god that the modern purveyors of this argument would have you belive.
I'm not saying anymore on that topic. Not worth my time.
Post a Comment
<< Home