Army of GOD wrote:oh god, this fucking thread. My sides.
Hey. You can only be on one side. Not two.
Moderator: Community Team
Army of GOD wrote:oh god, this fucking thread. My sides.
_sabotage_ wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Hmmm...
I live in Florida, which is where the dudes supposedly trained for the 9/11 acts. If I understand it right, most of those were not citizens, but were legally here, legally taking their pilot training. So, what if someone had got wind of what they'd planned. Well, by then they'd probably learned enough to do what they planned... so deporting them as undesirable (revoking their visa) probably wouldn't have prevented what occurred. Maybe delayed it, maybe not.
Detaining them on suspicion would probably be the only thing that could prevent what occurred.
That makes me lean toward Obama.
Our rights, however, are to a speedy trial. I personally don't believe those rights of citizens of the United States should apply to non-citizens; so again, as far as those legally within the U.S. suspected of these sorts of things, I lean toward Obama.
Citizens, however, are covered under those rights, one of those, "the right to a fair trial" - as well as "speedy" although legal speed and my speed don't usually agree. That makes me lean toward "civil rights" so my tally at this point is 2 for Obama, 1 against.
Thing is, it's awfully hard to "prove" something that didn't happen yet. Who would they call as witnesses for the prosecution? I'm sure Bin Laden, when alive, would've willingly come over to testify that, "yup, he's one of mine," and so forth. So, what, we have to wait for these acts to occur before we act on them? Because if you don't detain the terrorists, the plans will be carried out, and unfortunately some of them succeed. So, that makes me lean Obama again.
Tally is now 3 against 1, for Obama.
Except, it's not really "for Obama." See, the legislature "Obama" is operating under to detain etc. etc. stems from Bush, not Obama. Bush's regime started Gitmo, Bush's regime started the detaining without trial, Bush's regime started the telephone tapping without warrant.
Obama wasn't "for" all that. If you recall, Obama had wanted to close Gitmo and bring the folks that committed the acts to trial but no one seemed to wish to cooperate with that, for fear of further reprisal from terrorists and whatever other reasons they may have had.
So, Obama's wish to follow the Constitution, including giving rights to probable or possible terrorists, was nullified by the majority, not just Federal (Congress, etc.,) but also states like New York and others which refused to be the site where the trials could be held.
One other thing I dislike about the law these Washingtonians just passed: It's a felony not just to cooperate with the detaining, but ALSO a felony to cooperate with an INVESTIGATION? Jeesus, that's whacked!
9/11 was an inside job. 7 of the 19 hijackers are still alive. They went on BBC and major networks and said, wtf, I have been here the whole time, I was never on the plane. We have 3 buildings that fell in New York at free fall speed, from only 2 planes, the one that didn't get hit fell for no damn reason. The part of the pentagon that got hit had the records on their $2.3 trillion dollar unaccounted for spending. No plane has been seen at all in any videos filming the pentagon. Nearly 2,000 professional engineers and scientist have joined together to say the official story is scientifically impossible. Osama Bin Laden was never even charged and when asked why, we are told that there was no evidence. We can attack any target in the world in minutes, and you're telling me we couldn't shoot down the second plane in the WTC?
We then spent trillions, where do you think that money goes? Do you think it vanishes? And now your willing to give up more and more freedom for a your potential security? The TSA is going to be on the roads soon, teaching your kids that everywhere they go for the rest of their lives they should expect to be searched and groped and silent.
Juan_Bottom wrote:What's wrong with surveillance, evidence, and due process?
24 with an investigation or detainment of a United States citizen or
25 lawful resident alien located within the United States of America by
_sabotage_ wrote:How would the ACLU know if you were detained? You're still assuming habeas corpus even in its distinct absence.
_sabotage_ wrote:I thought we didn't know how many prisoners we were holding. And if we publicize them, isn't that kind of against the whole point of doing away with due process?
_sabotage_ wrote:Do you think we would even be talking about detaining people indefinitely without 9/11?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Army of GOD wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:Do you think we would even be talking about detaining people indefinitely without 9/11?
9/11 wouldn't have happened without the cold war.
The cold war wouldn't have happened without WWII.
WWII wouldn't have happened without WWI.
WWI wouldn't have happened without the assassination of Ferdinand.
Therefore, the assassination of Ferdinand should be discussed in this thread.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:i skipped from end of first page to start of third page
we are now discussing serbia's mom
Funkyterrance wrote:Ok, now granted politics are not my forte but wouldn't the reason for detaining these people be so that they wouldn't "terrorize" anyone between the time they were detained and the time they were either released or charged? I'm not taking sides, honestly just trying to figger out what's the dilly.