BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 10:17:10 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 03:56:28 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Since YOU are the one who insinuated that the Patriot Act gives Bush the
power to kill anyone he wants just for making a post to an internet
newsgroup, then YOU are the one who has to find the provision in the act
that gives him that power. If you can't then you were just ****ing in
the wind again, as usual.

Jeez, hate to burst your bubble, there, Steve, but before I ever
mentioned the Patriot Act, it was stated that Saddam could kill me for
making that statement. So, using your above diatribe, it is YOU that
has to "find a provision" that says that Saddam has that power, and
that right. If not, then it is YOU who is ****ing in the wind. Let's
recap, just to test your comprehension, and see if you are indeed,
****ing in the wind, or have any kind of proof of your statements. YOU
first said that Saddam could kill someone for making a statement like
I made. Before I EVER brought up the Patriot Act. Is that true, or
not? Okay, so you someone twist it around, and say I need to show you
exactly how the patriot act gives power to the government to seize
anyone thought to be subversive?? You show me how the Iraqi regime can
first, then I will in turn. That is only fair, Steve. You made your
statement first, so show some proof first.

Actually, no I did. Here's what you said in response to NYOB:
You asked for a difference between Saddam and Bush...and I told you that one
difference is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and posted
such a question.

If you don't agree with the answer, then offer a rebuttal. In absence of
such, it becomes obvious that when unable to offer a reasonable response,
you simply revert to name-calling.

So,I take it that you haven't read the newest version of the Patriot Act?

So why did you bring up the Patriot Act?

Because it certainly gives the government MUCH more power, and,
thusly, and this is what has political scholars worried, is it takes
away many, many of the checks and balances that were in place to
ensure that people got a fair trial, etc. But, I'm sure you don't know
of any of that, blinders too tight and all.

Fine. At least you can admit that it's not a rebuttal to the post you
were replying to, that you were unable to offer a resonable response and
you simply reverted to name calling. Thanks, that's all I was after.

Now, on to what you're asking from me, I take it that you actually
believe that when Saddam was in power, he *couldn't* just kill anyone he
wanted because it would be against the law.

Then why are we holding him?

Good, you disagree with yourself.

Are you really that stupid, or just acting that way to try and be
funny? Slowly now.....loosen those blinders.......how could we justify
holding Saddam, if according to you, he had the authority to kill
anyone he pleased? If that is true, what has he done wrong?

WOW, that's deep. You shouldn't think so hard. It's hurting your
brain. BTW, it's called crimes against humanity. Even if under Iraqi
law (which he can make anything he wants) it was legal for him to kill
anyone he wants as you claim, we can justify holding him the same way we
justified holding many others who have commited crimes against humanity.
Are you saying we were wrong every time we hold someone for crimes
against humanity if it was legal for them to commit those crimes in
their country when they ruled?

so, you are saying that we should respect the laws of NATO, the UN,
and treaties such as the Geneva Convention?? Good, we can also lock
Bush up now.

Steve

There you go, thank you! Finally, you ARE admitting Bush is like
Saddam!!! Bush has committed atrocious crimes against humanity too.
Thousands of innocent civilians lives have been taken. Let's hold him
accountable, too!