Why go after them at all? I mean, they are just real nice people that are misunderstood. Right, ferret?
One thing you have to realize, GTech, is that the constitution is there to protect the rights of ALL citizens of the USA, regardless of what they are accused of. It's the only way to guarantee fairness to all. And, it doesn't matter if gworld is a citizen or not. I am also not a citizen of the US, but I think that the constitution isn't just a document to protect Americans. It also represents an ideal outside your borders. Non-Americans can not necessarily say that they live by the constitution, but that doesn't take away from their vigor in defence of it. It's not a perfect document, by any means, but still worth defending, keeping, protecting and aspiring to. And, many non-Americans feel that although Bush hasn't yet violated it, he has certainly put the framework in place that easily facilitates it's doom. You can't exactly characterize Bush's actions as defending, keeping, protecting nor aspiring to the constitution of the United States of America. And, he's your leader.
You presume I'm sensitive towards and caring about terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth I respect my constitution very much. And I take pleasure in exposing those that seek to hide behind it to defend the actions of terrorists. I don't think taking terrorists off the streets is a bad thing. That's exactly the case with Padilla and I'm damn happy he didn't get the opportunity to carry it out. It's even more refreshing watching a certain group of people make excuses for terrorists! And yet not one single listing of a violation of the constitution in the last twenty pages. So much hypothetical attention being paid to such ruthless people!
I don't think that al qaida members have any right under US Constitution but AMERICAN CITIZENS have rights even if they are member of al qaida. I think it is hard for you to understand that some one can be an al qaida member and in the same time be an AMERICAN CITIZEN. These two points are not exclusive. As an AMERICAN CITIZEN, a person has a right to trial and defense independent of what they are suspected of. You can not approve of the administration action and in the same time pretend that you care about Constitution. I understand that in your opinion administration actions are correct since you do not put any value in US Constitution but why are you so scared to admit to your true opinion?
No where in our (not your) constitution does it say al qaida has rights, regardless of their nationality. I think it is hard for you to understand that most Americans don't give a crap about al qaida terrorst's feelings and want them off the streets. There are some exceptions to that, even right here on this forum. I'm not concerned with the rights of al qaida members. You are. We differ on that issue. I'm very happy this piece of trash you call a friend is off our streets! I note your continued disappointment that a terrorist was caught I love it when it works out that way! Ah, but not is all lost. Sometimes one of your friends just walks away! Cheer up gworld! Not all your buds end up behind bars where they belong
You have said many stupid things but this is really stupid even for you. Constitution could not say anything about Al qaida since it did not exist in that time but it talks about AMERICAN CITIZEN rights and puts no limitation on it independent of their membership in any group or what crime they are suspected of. Finally you admitted that you don't give a damn about Constitution, thank you. Don't you think it is strange that I as non American respect the US Constitution but you as an American think of it as a worthless piece of paper? It makes one wonder; what kind of American are you when you don't respect the Constitution of your country.
Gtech for the last time stop making yourself look like a fool and reread the fricken posts, if you have a problem with any of them point to them specifically and I'll be glad to hold your hand and show you where you are wrong! I NEVER, NOT ONCE STATED BUSH BROKE THE CONSTITUTION I will try this one last time in the hopes that even you can understand it. #1 was the discussion of Bush and the NSA where I stated how I would support him... I would support him if it was used against NON US CITIZENS, if it was used against souly US CITIZENS w/o a warrant I WOULD NOT SUPPORT HIM I can not make this any fricken clearer. #2 Was the discussion going on between me and mia of which you decided to chime in, in which you were proven wrong! Instead of admitting if you decided to put both into one package, the discussion about previous presidents actions, what you would allow a president to do and what I would into the same thing as what I'm stating Bush did. This is a flat out LIE! Please reread the fricken posts for the last time,..............................
Gtech here are your quotes of mine,,,hmmm not real convincing This was still the debate of using previous presidents executive orders as an all out right and US policy, not to the point of Bush breaking the constitution.......... Next one. Again the argument about previous presidents executive orders. hmmmmm Again clearly debating the previous president executive order argument... Yet still in the debate about previous admins, changing over to your classic reasoning of cherry picking which US citizens deserve rights and which ones do not.... This is realy getting into the hybrid of your classic terrorists or suspected terrorists even if they are US citizens don't deserve rights, the 'cherry picking' who the constitution is for, and still on the ex president debate and what a president can do. I'm glad you put this one in, for everyone reading especially...You can see there is a debate going on within the argument of 'ex presidents' not what bush did Yep where alot of the argument outside of the ex president executive decision, and or the NSA article went to, you stating you give the president a blank check, I saying I don't...Now how is this saying Bush broke the constitution yet again? Not once in your quotes do I say this.... Nice typo in this one ...but again this was your debate on basically giving a president a blank check, the previous executive orders and NOT BUSH! DING, DING, DING. Here you go I am specifically talking about the article, here I flat out state I do not see any break of the constitution.... Thank you for quoting this one as well,,, as the supreme court decision I posted on was about Clintons executive order and a certain case showing powers he granted are unconstitutional used against US citizens...So again you're blending the argument, or in other words lying... Thanks for playing the game it's been fun,
Yes and if you reread these posts it was the internal debate of you giving a blank check to a president with executive orders and I not giving one The hand holding option though is still offered, bring out where I state Bush broke the constitution and not in a different argument of executive orders, blank checks to the president or cherry picking which US citizens get rights under the constitution.....
Actually, I presume nothing of the sort. I HOPE you are sensitive to the rights of others, whether they are citizens or not. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Until the exact moment that guilt is determined by a court of law, you SHOULD want the rights of everyone and anyone respected. GWB may think the constitution is "just a god damned piece of paper", but you should have more respect for it than that. One who truly respects the constitution would not seek to apply it to some people and not others as that action goes against the constitution. On this, we can agree. Just because it hasn't happened yet, does NOT mean that it will not happen. The constitution is how old? And how old is the Patriot act? The areas where they intersect have yet to be really tested and played out in the courts. Give it time and maybe you'll realize just how badly GWB screwed you guys.
I did. Twice now. You are in a state of denial. And as far as I'm concerned, have lost any credibility you once had. What a shame
It makes everybody laugh when you talk about credibility? Bush, NSA and US government admitted that there was no WMD in Iraq. How about you Gtech, can you admit that you were wrong and there was no WMD in Iraq?
It's been my pleasure to show how you take both sides of positions, again. And to show how you directly and deliberately say one thing, and go right back to the other side of it. Didn't work last time, didn't work this time
The feeling is mutual.... Now reread what I responded with, and reread the fricken posts...You are blending them. One last time.. I have not stated GWB broke the constitution, nor do I think at this time with the information we know President George W Bush broke the US constitution! Reguarding the NSA spying
Then show it, funny how Gtech is the only one who thinks this, and even one of your usual people who sides with you called you on this latest rant or errrmmmm lie you've been spouting
I have no interest in the rights of terrorists. Period. I don't care who hides behind the constitution (especially non-us citizens who never expressed concern over the constitution EXCEPT for when mentioning terrorists). It's real simple. Now, if you and especially gword want to throw them a pity party, more power to you. I think we're up to about twenty four pages of the same constitution whiners, yet not one has shown anything that's been violated. Nothing. Just theoretical whining, "what ifs," what could be, etc. The tears are flowing! Says the "person" who was so sure it was fact that Cheney was making money off haliburton And that's about as good as it's going to get I suppose. Since all the usual constitution whiners that hide behind the constitution (some who are not even citizens) to protect/defend terrorists rights to blow up our country have failed miserably to show in any case, anything that has actually been violated. For that matter, any abuse. What a surprise! Screwed us? Well, if you call putting terrorists behind bars, cutting off their funding, preventing their attacks, enabling LEA's to utilize tools to be more effective being screwed, put me down for a tube of KY jelly Is it "be kind to a terrorist" week?
Thank you Debunked, glad someone has gotten what I was saying...I am not saying GWB has broken the constitution in anyway,,,the points Gtech is bringing up was a different debate all together beyond the NSA spying incident...
I've already quoted your lie: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=518760&postcount=3786 Still the denial. Can't accept the truth, hrb? Smacks you in the face and you still deny it? How funny!
That is not factually correct. Some were, some where not. I've pointed those out. I cannot help you with your denial.