So then yet again as long as it 'appears' to be working it's fine as it stands, no complaints on your end at all. That is your opinion it appears more americans are starting to disagree with that opinion though LOL, nice agrument keep with the talking points It seams the only time I have to reclarify is when I agree with someone such as anti war and it's immediately viewed by people as being anti bush, anti troops, terrorist supporters etc. I see it as being informed, and showing more of a belief than a one liner.
You should care because the Padilla doctrine constitutes a watershed event in American constitutional history and arguably the gravest threat to our way of life in the history of our nation. It effectively washes away centuries of constitutional protections with respect to the administration of criminal justice, including the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, right to bail, right to counsel, and right to trial by jury. What everyone also needs to recognize is that the Pentagon’s position is that it has the legitimate power to do this not only to Jose Padilla but also to every single American. If the Padilla doctrine is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, military officials will then possess the power to arrest any American, including newspaper editors, dissidents, and any critics of the government, and jail them indefinitely or, even worse, transport them to Cuba or elsewhere for torture or killing. But I suppose that is OK for you Gtech since as a fascist you believe that all enemies of state ( anybody who disagrees) should be tortured and killed. The truth is people like you are far more dangerous than any terrorists since while terrorists can only kill a limited number of people at one time, fascists can take away every human rights for millions and for many years to come.
Excuse me, but do only terrorists have human rights? Those people who got killed in 9/11, those people who got killed in 29/10 Delhi bomb blast dint have human rights? they dint have rights to live? what about them? I just dont understand We people who hate terrorist at the heart often being called Fascists. So what should we call people like you who have a very pathetic sympathy for terrorist and/or their supporter.
That's bullshit. Nobody here has any sympathy for terrorists. terrorist belong in prison cells. Why is that every time we mention something the government is doing AGAINST innocent american people, it gets twisted into being support for a terrorist... its extremely stupid. Now I'm not saying Padilla is guilty or not guilty. He very well could be, and if he is then he should be locked up. But since he hasn't got a trial or any rights... and is only "suspected" how will we ever know?
Do you even know what fascism is? Why don't you look up the definition of fascism ideology and then tell me if it is accurate description of you and Gtech ideology or not.
gworld doesn't care about those people. Only terrorists. gworld has never had a bad word for terrorists in all of his posts. And you won't see him make a post about some Christian whose rights were trampled. But you will see him seeking sympathy for terrorists and you will see his fear that Christians might pray him to death
Maybe some of you guys should move to Iran or something if you believe that quality and justice over there is held to a standard that the United States is inferior to.
It is working. Much to some's dismay. I tend not to complain about things that are not so. Nice hypotheticals and "could be's" being presented. We could all be abducted by aliens too Can't speak for others, but I see what you argue and what you don't. The mass sum of the minute detail followed with reclarification
Mike, I think it is the other way around and you should move to Iran since you appreciate their way of justice system so much that you want to enforce it in USA. It is funny how the pro administration people defend the government actions: " There is nothing to worry about, after all WE are not as bad as Iran, YET."
Did I ever say so? Crimerate in texas is pretty high but I never said it was the highest or extremly high
Then why use it as an example? What a horrible example. You're saying hard punishment doesn't affect the crime rate. Well there are states that have higher crime rates with a lot softer crime policies. So I guess your example proved nothing.
My intention was not to prove that hard punishment leads to high crime.. rather that hard punishment does not generally means that the crimerate is low. Look at Canada.. hard puishment? no.. low crimerate? Yes. However.. there may be some states with soft laws and high crimerate.
Yet some of it has been already been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, some of it from last I read was also unfunded 'or possibly going to be so?' so it can not be used because of constitutional issues, but yet let it stand as it is. That sounds so reasonable, yep no reason to look at it at all until perhaps a terrorist gets off because a court rules the powers were abused and it broke the constitution? Or would that not be enough for you, perhaps more 'non terrorists' are prosecuted and rights trampled? Wow it sure seams to appear you honestly don't care at all about the constitution as long as it appears to even get one terrorist, it's all good with you. Yet I see when you argue and when you can't, when you try to and then throw fancy little rips out instead of an argument, when speculation is fine for you and when it's not, yet you accuse me of what exactly? If you realy want to try to keep on arguing by using silly little rips feel free, I'll take part in the game as well and be as childish as you wish to be.