| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT--Very good news for the security of the US!
U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla, held for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to set off radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely without trial. The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives. The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed "enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
NOYB wrote: U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla, held for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to set off radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely without trial. The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives. The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed "enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Since this ruling supports the 'disapearing' of US citizens and denies them the constitutional rights under a system of laws that this country was founded on I see no great benefit from it. If there was solid proof there should be no reason NOT to have a criminal trial and conviction. |
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:04:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:
The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed "enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The ruling *will* have major implications for all Americans. It's very bad news for the Bill of Rights. You may want to refresh yourself on the dying document. Pay special attention to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla, held for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to set off radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely without trial. The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives. The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed "enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Since this ruling supports the 'disapearing' of US citizens and denies them the constitutional rights under a system of laws that this country was founded on I see no great benefit from it. If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have no rights. There was no way to fight a successful war against terrorism through our court system. The enemy knew this, and that's precisely why they were so successful in waging war against us without any repercussions against them. All of that changed after 9/11 with Bush as President. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:04:13 +0000, NOYB wrote: The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed "enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The ruling *will* have major implications for all Americans. It's very bad news for the Bill of Rights. You may want to refresh yourself on the dying document. Pay special attention to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm Ironically, one of the Amici supporting Padilla was none other than Janet Reno. Her name appears right alongside the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the NYCLU, the CLU of SC, and other mutant, traitorous leftie organizations. With Reno presiding over the Justice Dept through the 90's, it's no wonder why we were fighting an ineffective battle against terrorism before Bush took office. http://www.wiggin.com/db30/cgi-bin/p...%20Opinion.pdf |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:04:13 +0000, NOYB wrote: The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed "enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The ruling *will* have major implications for all Americans. It's very bad news for the Bill of Rights. You may want to refresh yourself on the dying document. Pay special attention to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't take up arms against this country. Padilla was an enemy combatant. |
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:
If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have no rights. Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence because you have been locked up for three years, without charges, without council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there, NOYB. There was no way to fight a successful war against terrorism through our court system. The enemy knew this, and that's precisely why they were so successful in waging war against us without any repercussions against them. All of that changed after 9/11 with Bush as President. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla, held for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to set off radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely without trial. The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives. The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed "enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Since this ruling supports the 'disapearing' of US citizens and denies them the constitutional rights under a system of laws that this country was founded on I see no great benefit from it. If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have no rights. Define subversive in a way that does not nullify the constitution and bill of rights. Be as detailed as possible. Protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not extend to enemy combatants. |
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:37:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:
This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't take up arms against this country. Padilla was an enemy combatant. Horse****, NOYB. Infringe on the rights of one US citizen, infringe on the rights of all US citizens. If Padilla was an enemy combatant, charge him. In my country, a man is innocent *until* proven guilty. There's a country about 150 miles south of you, that disappears citizens. Perhaps, you would be more comfortable there. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote: If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have no rights. Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence because you have been locked up for three years, without charges, without council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there, NOYB. There have been thousands of alleged "enemy combatants" freed from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib once military intelligence and/or tribunals have deemed that they are no longer a threat. And I have faith that the military system of justice will provide adequate protections for the truly innocent. But folks like Padilla are mutant scum with no hope for rehabilitation...and detaining him indefinitely is the best way to prevent him from ever again participating in battle against the US. There was no way to fight a successful war against terrorism through our court system. The enemy knew this, and that's precisely why they were so successful in waging war against us without any repercussions against them. All of that changed after 9/11 with Bush as President. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:37:40 +0000, NOYB wrote: This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't take up arms against this country. Padilla was an enemy combatant. Horse****, NOYB. Infringe on the rights of one US citizen, infringe on the rights of all US citizens. If Padilla was an enemy combatant, charge him. In my country, a man is innocent *until* proven guilty. There's a country about 150 miles south of you, that disappears citizens. Perhaps, you would be more comfortable there. I'm quite comfortable here. But since you mention Cuba, imagine that *you* lived there and spoke out against the government like you do here. And you think that the US is infringing upon your rights... |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote: If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have no rights. Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence because you have been locked up for three years, without charges, without council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there, NOYB. What about the numerous persons that were summarily beheaded over in Iraq. Do you abhor that kind of justice too? |
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote: If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have no rights. Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence because you have been locked up for three years, without charges, without council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there, NOYB. What about the numerous persons that were summarily beheaded over in Iraq. Do you abhor that kind of justice too? thunder isn't a bad person. He just happens to live in a fantasy world where it's desirable to show compassion to your enemy in the hope that they will do the same to you. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote: If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have no rights. Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence because you have been locked up for three years, without charges, without council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there, NOYB. What about the numerous persons that were summarily beheaded over in Iraq. Do you abhor that kind of justice too? thunder isn't a bad person. He just happens to live in a fantasy world where it's desirable to show compassion to your enemy in the hope that they will do the same to you. The problem is that our enemy's only compasionate act is a bullet in our heads. |
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:59:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:
I'm quite comfortable here. But since you mention Cuba, imagine that *you* lived there and spoke out against the government like you do here. Then why is it that you want to make this country more like that country? And you think that the US is infringing upon your rights... |
NOYB wrote:
This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't take up arms against this country. The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power, who at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have in office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars and a base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear with people like you and them in power. Sam |
Exactly.
If a person has taken up arms against the government the charge in a criminal court is treason. Once you have proved your charge in open court you can subject a person to the penalties perscribed by law. Take a logical step here. All persons involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens. So why are any Suadi nationals allowed any access to the US and why did the US government put troops into Suadi Arabia to defeat the terrorist organizations and promote a democratic society. ? Try which King is good friends with a US president and his oil buddies. |
On 10 Sep 2005 08:46:07 -0700, "Sam" wrote:
NOYB wrote: This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't take up arms against this country. The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power, who at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have in office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars and a base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear with people like you and them in power. Sam What would be the requirements if Kerry were in power? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
|
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla, held for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to set off radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely without trial. The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives. The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed "enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Since this ruling supports the 'disapearing' of US citizens and denies them the constitutional rights under a system of laws that this country was founded on I see no great benefit from it. If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have no rights. There was no way to fight a successful war against terrorism through our court system. The enemy knew this, and that's precisely why they were so successful in waging war against us without any repercussions against them. All of that changed after 9/11 with Bush as President. I guess you do not believe in the reasons for the 2nd amendment. |
|
|
|
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen. And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such activities is to HOLD A TRIAL. How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be for this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced thought in the American dialogue. If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand and you are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is needed to classify you as an enemy combatant. |
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen. And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such activities is to HOLD A TRIAL. How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be for this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced thought in the American dialogue. If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand and you are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is needed to classify you as an enemy combatant. Mr. Padilla was arrested by the FBI, not the military. He was unarmed (in fact he was at O'Hare airport). Try dealing in truth next time you post. Did I mention Padilla's name? I just spoke in general terms regarding the the classification of an enemy combatant! |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen. And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such activities is to HOLD A TRIAL. How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be for this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced thought in the American dialogue. If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand and you are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is needed to classify you as an enemy combatant. If you are an "enemy combatant," then you should fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention. Not if you're an "unlawful" enemy combatant. |
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have no rights. There was no way to fight a successful war against terrorism through our court system. The enemy knew this, and that's precisely why they were so successful in waging war against us without any repercussions against them. All of that changed after 9/11 with Bush as President. QUIZ: These words were written by: a) Johnnie Cochran b) Janet Reno c) a former Executive Director of the ACLU d) Gerry Spence "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive." Answer below The correct answer is: e) Antonin Scalia Don't worry. I'm sure Scalia will get his chance to rule on this case. Let's see what he says at that point, OK? |
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 05:07:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Not if you're an "unlawful" enemy combatant. Ah, but a court is the only power that can, legally, determine if a combatant is "unlawful". Bush does not have that power. The 1996 War Crimes Act also makes it clear, that failure to follow the Geneva Convention is a war crime. Impeachment, anyone? And what about Yaser Hamdi? For three years, this administration held him, an American citizen, incommunicado, assaulting all Americans' civil liberties. Holding that Hamdi "jeopardizes compelling national security interests" and would "interfere with if not irreparably harm the military's ongoing efforts to gather intelligence." Then they back him off to Saudi, when he promises that he won't sue. Must have been a real threat. |
Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in ink.net: If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US citizen. And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such activities is to HOLD A TRIAL. How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be for this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced thought in the American dialogue. If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand and you are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is needed to classify you as an enemy combatant. If you are an "enemy combatant," then you should fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention. George & Co. are above any conventions, agreements, accords etc. Just ask the people trying to sell reasonably priced softwood to US customers. International Outlaw might be a good term for his govt. |
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... John Sobieski ] wrote in : On 10 Sep 2005, "Sam" wrote: NOYB wrote: This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't take up arms against this country. The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power, who at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have in office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars and a base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear with people like you and them in power. Sam Messing around and planning to make a dirty bomb is not on the forefront of a Real US citizen's mind. Neither was it in the forefront of Jose Padilla's mind. Why don't you try actually PAYING ATTENTION to the case? The Feds abandoned the "dirty bomb" allegation quite a while ago. Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag? Where is Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, etc. in all of this. Why aren't they shouting out to the American Public the injustice?. They have the podium for it. Maybe they agree. Do they perceive protecting a real danger to our country is not worth their political careers? What is your opinion on why they remain silent in this matter? Thomas |
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:37:22 -0400, Thomas Ranger wrote:
Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag? You just don't get it. No one is defending Padilla. They are defending the Constitution of the United States.. If Padilla is such an "obvious scumbag", charge him, and let the courts do their business. You don't "disappear" him, like some third rate country. To allow a government to lock up it's citizens, *any* citizens, without a trial, is tyranny. |
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Thomas Ranger" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... John Sobieski ] wrote in : On 10 Sep 2005, "Sam" wrote: NOYB wrote: This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't take up arms against this country. The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power, who at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have in office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars and a base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear with people like you and them in power. Sam Messing around and planning to make a dirty bomb is not on the forefront of a Real US citizen's mind. Neither was it in the forefront of Jose Padilla's mind. Why don't you try actually PAYING ATTENTION to the case? The Feds abandoned the "dirty bomb" allegation quite a while ago. Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag? What led you to conclude that citizen Padilla is "an obvious scumbag"? The now-abandoned "dirty bomb" allegation? Or something else claimed by the same liars who originated the "dirty bomb" allegation? Why didn't you answer my simple question? You snipped it out. I'll repeat it. Where is Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, etc. in all of this. Why aren't they shouting out to the American Public the injustice?. They have the podium for it. Maybe they agree. Do they perceive protecting a real danger to our country is not worth their political careers? What is your opinion on why they remain silent in this matter? Please answer the question. Maybe they know a hell of a lot more than you? Your opinion is all I asked, not a snipped commentary on my thoughts. Trying to be coy, clever, and evasive? It won't work. Your opinion please! Thomas |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:37:22 -0400, Thomas Ranger wrote: Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag? You just don't get it. No one is defending Padilla. They are defending the Constitution of the United States.. If Padilla is such an "obvious scumbag", charge him, and let the courts do their business. You don't "disappear" him, like some third rate country. To allow a government to lock up it's citizens, *any* citizens, without a trial, is tyranny. Where is Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, etc. in all of this. Why aren't they shouting out to the American Public the injustice?. They have the podium for it. Maybe they agree. Do they perceive protecting a real danger to our country is not worth their political careers? Surely they could make political hay out of this if you are right. Ever think you may be wrong? Ever think they know more than you? What is your opinion on why they remain silent in this matter? Thomas |
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:28:51 -0400, Thomas Ranger wrote:
Where is Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, etc. in all of this. Why aren't they shouting out to the American Public the injustice?. They have the podium for it. Maybe they agree. Do they perceive protecting a real danger to our country is not worth their political careers? Surely they could make political hay out of this if you are right. Ever think you may be wrong? Ever think they know more than you? What is your opinion on why they remain silent in this matter? Frankly, I don't know if they have remained silent. Regardless, I have my own voice, and more importantly, my own mind. Kennedy, et.al., do not speak for me. A democracy depends on the rule of law. If the government can't be depended upon to follow the rule of law, how can you expect the population to? Do you have a problem with Padilla being given a trial? "It is tyranny's trademark to erase what came before, lest anyone trace the road back and realize that the present has become far, far worse than anything in the past." - Paul William Roberts |
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... "Thomas Ranger" wrote in : "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... John Sobieski ] wrote in : On 10 Sep 2005, "Sam" wrote: NOYB wrote: This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't take up arms against this country. The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power, who at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have in office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars and a base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear with people like you and them in power. Sam Messing around and planning to make a dirty bomb is not on the forefront of a Real US citizen's mind. Neither was it in the forefront of Jose Padilla's mind. Why don't you try actually PAYING ATTENTION to the case? The Feds abandoned the "dirty bomb" allegation quite a while ago. Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag? What led you to conclude that citizen Padilla is "an obvious scumbag"? The now-abandoned "dirty bomb" allegation? Or something else claimed by the same liars who originated the "dirty bomb" allegation? Who cares! Padilla is a POS gang-banger at best...and a terrorist hellbent on destroying America at worst. Either way, he's trash that deserves no protection. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Who cares! Padilla is a POS gang-banger at best...and a terrorist hellbent on destroying America at worst. Either way, he's trash that deserves no protection. Yes, I suppose we should entrust our civil liberties to ill-informed dentists. My rights weren't affected one bit by this decision...nor were yours. So why do you care? |
Harry,
Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation. It is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a terrorist hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to protect our civil liberties. If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at best, it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to either entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist. Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the nuances of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he consistently out debates you on every issue. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Who cares! Padilla is a POS gang-banger at best...and a terrorist hellbent on destroying America at worst. Either way, he's trash that deserves no protection. Yes, I suppose we should entrust our civil liberties to ill-informed dentists. -- - - - George W. Bush, our hero! Hurricanes are hard work. We must prevent all future hurricanes. |
"Starbuck's" wrote in message ... Harry, Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation. It is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a terrorist hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to protect our civil liberties. If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at best, it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to either entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist. Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the nuances of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he consistently out debates you on every issue. Not too shabby for an "uniformed" dentist, eh? |
NOYB,
Definitely not too shabby for someone who graduated from a tech school. ; ) I would have expected someone with a Liberal Arts degree from a Ivy League School to out debate you in a second. Now if we could only find someone with a Liberal Arts Degree from an Ivy League school who wants to debate you. ; ) Since we agree more than disagree, I will refrain from your debates. ; ) "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Starbuck's" wrote in message ... Harry, Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation. It is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a terrorist hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to protect our civil liberties. If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at best, it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to either entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist. Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the nuances of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he consistently out debates you on every issue. Not too shabby for an "uniformed" dentist, eh? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com