You said, "favor the rights or terrorists". That is an admission that even terrorists have rights. Just thinking out-loud. tom
Are you sure AC and you were not separated at birth? Well that can't be true... That's just Republican propaganda. Didn't you notice the "Fox" logo in the lower left corner? To bad the video leaves out the part were she raise her weapon at officers and the camera crew
Why who mentioned that now? Oh wait, let me guess... I'm beginning to like that ignore filter [/quote]
I really wonder how many people think he is real... Rush uses the fictional character to gather his thoughts and buy a few seconds. I think it is brilliant, and funny.
Well given that he must have a fleet of call screeners because of the number of nuts that call up... "Snerdly is a nickname that Rush made up and gave to his call screeners during the early years of his national show. There were actually several Snerdlys. If I remember correctly, the longest running of these was Bo Snerdly (real name James Golden). In the early days of internet radio, Golden left Rush's show to do his own internet talk show. However, this only lasted for about a year before the company folded up. Since this time Golden has rejoined Rush's support team as the "Official Program Observer". I don't really know what this job entails. Any way, when you here Rush refer to Bo Snerdly or Mr. Snerdly on his show, this is who he is talking about."
So you really think that video clip of that old lady getting tackled and dragged out of her home is Republican propaganda? I guess they got some actors together, set up a studio, and shot the clip to scare Americans................. I mean, first someone calls me a liberal, now I'm adding links to "republican propaganda?" Funny how not that many people have anything to say about the video clips I posted............
It was a joke man. Anyone that watches Fox is supposed to be considered a right winger. You know, "Fox" that station that warps peoples minds and brain washes them... Just taking a page out of the previous lunacy I have seen here in the past with regard to that "other" network. I'm surprised you could not find the humor in that. You are taking this stuff way to seriously. Sorry you have no sense of humour. There really isn't anything to say about them... That's probably why Bingo!
'could' was a conditional modifier for the world 'favor'. 'Rights' was unconditional in your statement. After America's Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled on military tribunals for civilians (especially American). It was declared, NON-military members could not be trialed by military courts, while civil courts were still functional. We all have rights, even terrorists, since they do not represent a country. Viva La Civil Rights! tom
I choose not to support the rights of terrorists. If you choose otherwise, that is your decision. In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
There are things I do not understand, the 1942 ruling it addresses people, who are considered 'prisoners of war'. A term that seems to no really label today's terrorists, give me a minute. First the 'Prisoners of war' are not really American citizens (viewing this from the American view point since Americans aren't representing the enemy territory as stated) so they are still civilians, and a few times, enemy combatants are referenced as being representatives of a 'territory'. Meaning that war seems to be limited to one political entity (country) against another political entity (another country). It even fortifies this by mentioning they carry identification that they represent, and perform the duties, required of them by a higher authority. So this seems to not apply back to American Citizens or terrorists who do not represent a political organization (a government), has this been applied today's immediate conflicts? Many countries have tossed out the Geneva conventions, because today's' terrorists is more a rogue operator rather than representing any recognized territorial government. Even so, all have rights, that's why in WW2 spies and saboteur's were killed basically on the spot. Countries of the Western Sphere have executed not any captured terrorist, that they've admitted to. Thank you, tom
It's a few pages back now. But The News of the World is not a news source to be taken seriously. It's a "tits and arse" newspaper full of celebrity crap, "I got pregnent by 16 different men" stories, and stories to make people spit out their morning coffee in shock and talk about with their mates on monday at work.
Hi Tom, I disagree. Visit the page, then in your browser, search "Prisoner of War." I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that this addresses prisoners of war. From the footnotes: Next, Charge 1 is listed as follows: And for the court's ruling: In addition, enemy combatant, which is what jose padilla is being held as, was clearly defined in 1863 and mentioned in this ruling, as was highlighted/bolded in my original response above. There is a history or precedent, long before the 1942 ruling and long before GWB was even born.
For the previous stuff, I agree it exists. Rather than rehashing how I don't see people who don't represent nations being POW's, we can just leave that to the courts, not us. Yes, again. With this administration digging up laws to fortify it's position, many have been exposed to light. As for Jose Padilla, I have my option, as I'm sure you have yours, as for right now he's captive, and with time we'll see the reasons for his habius Corpus violations under further public, and judicial review. Maybe by airing trash, we can toss out what wrong, and what is good. Only time will tell, tom