Conquer Club

Army of GOD wrote:oh god, this fucking thread. My sides.

Hey. You can only be on one side. Not two.

_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.

2 posts on page one that make me want a "like" button so badly.


I'm inclined to throw my weight against Obamer on this one. Indefinite detention by the military is always extreme, and I sincerely question not only the legality of it, but also the justification.
What's wrong with surveillance, evidence, and due process?

On the plus side, everyone's so stoned in Washington, what with the legal weed and all, that no one's amped up enough for terrorism / treason. POW....problem solved!

*wonders where I spent my trillions I thot I had......stumbles off for more beer / weed / treason*

Juan_Bottom wrote:What's wrong with surveillance, evidence, and due process?

Those first two fall under "investigation" and cooperating with an investigation is now a Felony in Washington, so you're still "for" that law they passed?

24 with an investigation or detainment of a United States citizen or
25 lawful resident alien located within the United States of America by

"Due process" includes "arrest" which is a detainment, so you're still "for" that law they passed?

The part I can disagree with is the continuing detainment of a citizen without trial, but the ACLU would be up in arms about anyone detained without the rest of the process.

How would the ACLU know if you were detained? You're still assuming habeas corpus even in its distinct absence.

_sabotage_ wrote:How would the ACLU know if you were detained? You're still assuming habeas corpus even in its distinct absence.

Arrests are usually publicized, that's why we know how many are held in Gitmo, etc.

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.

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: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?

No. The reason that "due process" is now side-stepped is because, in order to convict someone in our court system, the prosecutor needs a lot of evidence. Less evidence is needed to suspect and arrest. "Who" is arrested/detained at Gitmo, taken away from the war zone to be held, for example, is known, it's just not widely publicized. But "who" is investigated in this or that town for suspected acts of treason/terror quite often makes the news.

Funkyterrance had it partly right. If a suspected terrorist - one with enough evidence to arrest, but insufficient to prosecute - is detained, then that suspect cannot further terrorize.

The other part is, since most of those plans are going on outside of our country, we have a tough time getting physical evidence to prosecute, so we have to fall back on witness testimony if we were to prosecute.

Bush "waterboarded" in order to get witness testimony, but it's rather like asking the custodian at Enron what the CEO was doing. Too many layers between, with each flunky being assigned only his part in it.

Here's the rub, I've mentioned before: if folks training those with visas enough to get into our flight school overheard something that made it sound like those would-be pilots were planning an assault on national buildings using planes as weapons, well, without written evidence of those plans we couldn't have stopped them without sidestepping "due process" to detain them for longer than is normal in our court systems.

If you could turn back time, and had enough evidence to suspect what would happen, and had some evidence pointing to those pilots, if it was in your power, would you detain them?

Should we not have gone after Bin Laden because we didn't have sufficient physical evidence to convict him in our court of law? Because we didn't. We had a lot of reason to suspect, we even had his claims - but law enforcement officials know that they get false claims all the time, for whatever twisted reasons people want their names in the news or whatnot, and claim to be responsible for acts they didn't commit.

In other words, if we had arrested him and put him on trial, he would've gotten off despite we KNEW he was behind alot of it, he'd made it his reason for living to take down the US.

Terrorists don't fall under our military systems, and they fall a bit outside our legal systems, so "something different" is needed to prevent us from sitting helplessly, unable to do anything "legally." Once it's in law, it IS legal.

We know that there are folks getting legal visas to perpetrate acts of terror, and we know that sometimes US citizens are also "in" on terrorist acts, but until the act takes place, it's really tough to get enough evidence of what was planned to stop it without detaining those suspected of doing/planning partly to stop them, and partly to try to get their testimony of what was planned so we can go after others.

Wow that's some Koolaid you're drinking.

So we should ignore the thousands of experts who base the fact that the official 9/11 story is impossible on evidence and use very suspect evidence instead and just say it was Bin Laden no matter what. And we should continue this process on our own people?

Some searches you can do to get some news from the BBC, CBS, NYTimes and other news outlets.

Former Gitmo prisoner weapons Libya Nato
Advanced 9/11 warnings ignored
US secret prisons black site
Pentagon crash impossible
Former Intelligence chief questions official story
Bin Laden visited by CIA in July
CIA Bin Laden confession tapes fake
Building 7 BBC early report
2,000 engineers say controlled demolition WTC

I love how this turned into a 9/11 conspiracy thread.

Do you think we would even be talking about detaining people indefinitely without 9/11?

_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.

WTF?

WHERE IS DAGIP??

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.

Assassination of Ferdinand wouldn't have happened w/out Habsburg oppression of Serbia.

Therefore, Serbia should be posting in this thread.

-TG

I love porking Serbia's madre

i skipped from end of first page to start of third page




we are now discussing serbia's mom

wat

john9blue wrote:i skipped from end of first page to start of third page




we are now discussing serbia's mom

wat

It's like the idea that all Wikipedia pages sprout from the Philosophy page. All debates sprout from 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.

If the government was perfect, then sure, this law would be great. But since the government is an organization which is in the unique position to monitor itself, and that politicians and bureaucrats are as self-interested as us, then we start getting into this odd situation.

It would be best to constrain the power of government because it lacks sufficient self-accountability for detaining individuals who are deemed to have an alleged link with terrorists. The government already illegally discarded and legally has eroded many civil liberties, and now it's intent on denying others due process?

When some think that this is a good idea, then we really have to start questioning the government and more importantly our capacity to become desensitized to the loss of our civil liberties.