Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

hmmm.. it seems anti war is leading, maybe after goegre bush leaves this year, it will all stop..

jks. jks..

 

I'll have to recheck the posts later for any responces needed, but yep having a bud light right now.

 

I have to stay away from the bud light. Dude I can pound down 20 of those without blinkling. It's like drinking water for me. Dangerous for the calerie meter.

5 beamish, two shots of yager, and then a beamish to chase it down with gets my evening going.

 

Nice try to justify it but it is just smoke and mirror. The patriot acts mentions breaking the criminal code, well if 10 people gather in the street corner and start shouting against the war, they are guilty of unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct and officially they can be charged as "domestic terrorist".
Are they really terrorist because they had a protest gathering at street corner?

The supporter of patriot act pretend that before patriot act, there were no laws in USA and every one was free to go around, make bombs and kill anyone they like and there was nothing that stopped them. The truth is all these acts were illegal before patriot act and government could gather information about foreigners legally since they were not protected according to the law.

The whole purpose of patriot act was to remove the protection offered by constitution to Americans and make it convenient and easy for government to suppress the political opposition in the society.

Terrorism and other criminal acts were illegal long before patriot act as was spying on Americans or denying Americans their right according to constitution. The only thing that was changed by patriot act is the fact that it is now legal to spy on Americans and they are not protected by the constitution.

"I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution"

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour while sentencing a terrorist.

 

Yes we do still have the constitution as long as we are willing to do what it takes to preserve it, and not allow it to be pissed away in the name of 'safety', 'terror', 'morals' or whatever other excuse people try to use.

Again I have no problem using the patriot act for 'terrorists' and non US citizens, so I think we actually agree?

Of course that will depend on your opinion, I will take the constitution and what our country was founded on every time, no matter the peril.

Our way of life which includes and in large part if not most of it is dependant on the US constitution, of which I am arguing for.

Yes my main fear with the patriot act. As I've already stated just because it appears to not have wide spread abuse now, can you image when some 'liberal' as I know that's who you guys don't like has this same power on their side? Every inch you give it will be come common place to the point barely anyone questions it, the few who do are called nuts. Look at the gun laws and how the continue to erode away the basics of the right to bear arms.

Never said that actually, I was against the patriot act and didn't bring Bush up that I can remember? In previous posts, but not on this subject. As you stated it goes far beyond Bush and will be going on into the future.

Umm I'm all for that, and I hope this wasn't directed at me as I've never called our troops murderers.

I agree, but I also see the right not wanting to admit certain things as well. I wish both sides would wake the FUXX up!

--edit changed your to our as it was a f up, I am good at those

 

I actually don't give the ACLU much respect either, I base my opinion off of the 'limited' debate that happened when the patriot act was put into place, the fact that even republicans were very uneasy about it, legal write ups on the subject as well as court decisions.

I don't fear it being used against me either, but I think you are seeing my point and distaste for it. I am against almost ANYTHING that 'could' be used as even the starting block to erode our freedoms, reguardless if it directly effects me or not. I do not own a gun, but you can be damned certain I will stick up for those who wish to do so!

 

Great post hrb!

The only flaw I saw was this.

I was saying that if we are faced with the two options and only the two options we will have to make a decision.

What would you chose? Not take away the rights of a killer and "study him/her" or actually take away the rights and prosecute to the fullest. Stop the murder cold in its tracks.

 

Zman

If you had only 2 choice:

1- To live in a dictatorship and be safe

or

2- To live in democracy and and accept the risk that something can happen

What do you chose?

 

You actually have to ask that?

Come on gworld, you've known me for a while now. Let's skip the silly questions shall we?

Just for the record... I would chose #1.

I want to live under a dictatorship that does not allow me to get educated.
I want to live under a dictatorship that does not allow me to vote, speak, share my views, chose a religion, talk shit about the government, start my own business.
I want to live under a dictatorship that keeps me safe unless I say his/her name in a wrong tone. Then I get my arms yanked out of socket.

Yeah thats what I want.

Of course I would chose #2.

I played your game gw, now you play mine.

Would you rather...

A) Live in Iraq under a dictatorship
B) Live in America under democracy

 

Sorry but I would not take the rights of any citizen away in the name of possibly 'stopping' a murder. I look at it this way, if they can take or erode the rights of a murderer away, next step is a common criminal, then anyone who disagree with the government, snowballing down through a miserable chain I'm sure nobody wants to go through.

 

/

You shouldnt say sorry to me. There are several thousand family members who may accept though.

Why is it that it is so difficult to keep a discussion on the topic of KNOWN KILLERS? It seems that every reply to anyone who is pro-war is something like "supposed terrorists" or "detainee" or something like that.

Folks, if we arrest someone that is an American who FLEW TO THE MIDDLE EAST to train to KILL AMERICANS why in the hell should we give them rights?

"possibly"

If it were "possible" to stop from happening would it have been worth it doing so?

I sure would hate to tell someones son that it happened because we didnt think it had enough merit to act on.

Well Jerry, your mom and dad were killed by a terrorists. We knew he was one but didnt stop him because it was "possible" that he wouldnt act on what we knew he trained to do.

That doesnt sounds very solid to me.

 

Zman it started as a question if gtech was for the patriot act or not. I have said over and over, terrorists and or non US citizens I have no problem with. Much of which the US government ALREADY had the powers in the patriot act to pursue terrorists in the same way under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). If it was just for terror and or non US citizens I would have NO PROBLEM with it at all. Why do those for it continue to pound the 'but if we could stop a terrorist' when I have not once said I am against it for 'terrorism' I am against it for US citizens in non terror related instances, of which the patriot act expanded to include much more than 'terror'.

Those backing up the patriot act are doing so for the terror issue, of which I would to, I would argue to INCREASE the governments powers for terror or non US citizens, where my problem lies is how the patriot act could be turned against the US population and not just in the name of defending against 'terror'

I'm only going to quote this, as if you are talking about 9/11 my stance would still give the government the full powers to have 'stopped' 9/11 if it could have been prevented via the patriot act!

 

hr, lets try a scenario.

Tom is an American citizen. Tom travels to the middle east to train in a terrorist camp. Tom travels back and is detained. We have substantial evidence that Tom took place in said actions.

Should Tom's house be searched? Family questioned? Background investigated, credit records pulled, friends and co-workers interviewed? Should Tom be allowed to watch Mighty Mouse on the telly?

Personally I think Tom should be locked in a very small room and should not be granted ANY right other than life, food, water, a pisser, and clothing until a court of law can take care of the issue. Terrorism is a new beast for us to tackle. At least it has been for the past 20 or 30 years.

I'm not big on the patriot act, but I am big on putting a stop to the "nice and cuddly" treatment of people who have put themselves in a position where it is hard to prove they are NOT involved in terrorism.

You do make some great points about the patriot act. I tried to green you but my tank is empty. Dont let me forget to do so in the next few days.

 

Now lets try a new scenario:

Bob was born/raised in America but his family and historic culture are back in the middle east. He takes a trip there for vacation.

When he arrives back in U.S. he is detained and questioned without basis (maybe mistaken identity).

According to you we should stick a probe up his ass and all in his business without a fair trial or any constitutional rights.

There's a reason we have a SEPERATE JUSTICE SYSTEM from the enforcement system. There's a reason we have INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Because you can't always tell who the real terrorist is and who the everyday innocent guy is!!!! How would you like to be detained indeffinently without constitutional rights and a fair trial because someone made an anynomous tip that you were a terrorist?????

It's really not far fetched, and with the patriot act in place, it could easily happen if it hasn't already.

 

Yes but I believe in a case such as this the government could simply get a standard warrant bypassing the patriot act in it's entirety. I'm not a lawyer, but this scenario doesn't appear to be a patriot act type instance

 

Good point. Very good point. It very well may not be a patriot act issue.

So based on that scenario we agree?

 

Yes I agree that if someone 'and there is proof' went to a terrorist training camp I don't see any problem at all with the government looking into it at all. As long as the government does not rail road the individual, however an arrest warrant, search warrant and other investigations I don't personally see a problem with. In the case you put forth I would think it could easily be assumed a possible crime is being carried out, and not just any crime but a crime against our federal government aka our home land the US of A.

I do however agree with Yo Yo as well, the government better have some damn good proof and not just accuse someone of going to visit their families country of origin

 

I think you the told the truth when you chose the first alternative since every other post that you have made supports that position.

In regard to your question, the answer is neither. I prefer to live in Canada since while our politicians are going crazy and trying to pass modified version of patriot act in Canada, our situation still is not as bad as USA.

You have a very interesting logic since according to you:

Lack of law and protection of human rights in Iraq= Dictatorship BUT Lack of law and protection of human rights in USA= Democracy.

 

gworld, how can you compare Iraq to the US?

are you kidding?

And anyway it's

Dictatorship>>>Lack of law and protection of human rights in Iraq not the other way round

Lack of law and protection of human rights in USA even if it was that way, and I am not saying it is, it would be to protect what's sometimes more important than some human rights, such as privacy, that is life and security, peace and a future.

 

I think former soviet union and China also use the same excuse. It is very seldom a dictator openly admits that it is for his own benefit. Dictatorships usually take away people's freedom and rights for the people's benefit.

Democracy in USA according to you >>> lack of privacy, spying on their own citizen without any evidence of wrong doing, the ability to declare any kind of opposition "domestic terrorism", no right to defend yourself in court, the possibility of indefinite imprisonment without any trial or conviction

I think even former soviet and present China or Cuba, usually have some kind of show trial before sending people to prison.