CNN poll finds that majority of Americans do NOT think Bush has restricted civil liberties too much

[tony hardware 0]

Do you seriously believe that YouTube is biased? Yes, it has videos that videos that support one side of an issue, like for example, the MJ Fox-embryonic stem cell video... But it also has a video that present the opposite side of that very same issue, in fact, it was posted on this board, by, oh... who was it?

 

Yeah, but I couldn't get it through a Youtube search. I had to use the Drudgereport link. Regardless, that ACLU sh!t got me a little wound up. I don't REALLY think Youtube is biased or google, but I do think there is too much control over the information children access and read.

 

You got me.

[akaoni 0]

Yeah, but I couldn't get it through a Youtube search. I had to use the Drudgereport link. Regardless, that ACLU sh!t got me a little wound up. I don't REALLY think Youtube is biased or google, but I do think there is too much control over the information children access and read.

 

You got me.

 

To me that seems like the heart of the Net Neutrality issue. Will the internet be treated like a newspaper, with internet service providers having editorial content, or will it be treated like a telegraph or mail. If it's going to be treated from a legal perspective like cable, or a newspaper, then our access to a wide range of issues will be quickly curtailed, because ISPs will be able to exercize editorial content. I'd much rather have the ability to surf where I like and partake in the bised news that I choose, rather than having it served up to me through a mainstream media sieve...

[DanXIII 8]

Well, since I posted this nobody (except for hoytdwow) has been able to post a single example of how their civil liberties have been curtailed, so couldn't the same be said of those who think that Bush has gone too far?

 

Your logic is flawed. Just because it hasn't happened to a random sample/person does not mean it hasn't happened.

 

Let's flip your argument on its head: Assume that Bush signed an executive order banning the private sale, transport, and ownership of firearms (in clear violation of Amendment II). You do not own a firearm, nor do you ever plan on purchasing one.

 

Has Bush violated your civil liberties?

[davebg 0]

Good ol' Ben's words are timeless and always appropriate. If you value your own hide more than the liberties you have a right too, then you are a coward and don't deserve freedom or security.

Ah, I see. So, according to you if I don't share the same priorities as you, then I don't deserve those very rights that you think all Americans are entitled to, nor do I deserve the safety that I desire so much.

 

You know, I'm pretty sure that's not what your boy Ben or the rest of the Founding Fathers had in mind.

[Snuff 10]

All you fockers supposedly have billion dollar homes, model wives, Lamborghini's, and the most perfect kids, and you're still complaining?

[DanXIII 8]

The President has reserved the right to classify anyone, even a US citizen, an enemy combatant. Once one is classified that, under the recent law passed by Congress, that person no longer has Habeas Corpus rights. Even if an American Citizen is captured fighting abroad, they should still have the right to trial, for treason, if for nothing else. They are an American Citizen and should always be granted those rights. We are innocent until proven guilty. A trial is necessary for that proof.

 

While you are correct that the President does have the power to determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant" with the new law (Military Commissions Act of 2006), your conclusion that the President can keep American citizens from accessing the courts is incorrect:

 

I'll refer you to Section 7(e)(1) and (2):

 

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

 

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

 

 

 

Key words for additional consideration: "an Alien"

 

As defined by the law, see definitions section:

 

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

 

 

The President may have the authority to declare you an enemy combatant, but the U.S. Court may review your Habeus petition so long as you are not 'an Alien.'

 

 

 

Now if you want to talk torture you've got a legitimate beef with this legislation and this administration...

[parrot 789]

I was trying to get you to admit that your "he's a citizen no matter what so he has rights no matter what" statements wouldn't hold up. I accomplished my goal.

 

Thanks.

Wow, clever. Yeah, I know that whole "citizens have rights" view is pretty whacky.

[tony hardware 0]

I'll refer you to Section 7(e)(1) and (2):

 

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

 

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

 

 

GAWD, where do you people find the time to find THIS sh!t! There is no competing with someone like this because I am not undertaking the effort required for a college level research project just to prove my point in a Fantasy Football based political forum.

[Toro 3]

Wow, clever. Yeah, I know that whole "citizens have rights" view is pretty whacky.

 

Speaking of clever, I liked how you removed some key words from the statement and presented it as the truth.

 

You are a master debator.

[parrot 789]

Speaking of clever, I liked how you removed some key words from the statement and presented it as the truth.

 

You are a master debator.

Oh, you mean those key words you put in quotes as though I had made that statement when I never did? Clever like that?

 

Citizens have rights, full stop.

 

They compromise those rights, to a point, and may open themselves to a different form of due process, if they go join a foreign fighting force and engage in open hostilities against their country. BUT THEY STILL HAVE RIGHTS. It's not about "giving" someone rights, or whether they "deserve" them, it's about keeping reasonable controls on the government and ensuring that they cannot just act with impunity, even on issues like terrorism. I hope that's simple enough for you.

[Toro 3]

Oh, you mean those key words you put in quotes as though I had made that statement when I never did? Clever like that?

 

Citizens have rights, full stop.

 

They compromise those rights, to a point, and may open themselves to a different form of due process, if they go join a foreign fighting force and engage in open hostilities against their country. BUT THEY STILL HAVE RIGHTS. It's not about "giving" someone rights, or whether they "deserve" them, it's about keeping reasonable controls on the government and ensuring that they cannot just act with impunity, even on issues like terrorism. I hope that's simple enough for you.

 

People who train in terrorist camps and plot to kill Americans in terrorist attacks are not citizens and should lose those rights, IMO.

 

Hope that is simple enough for you.

[parrot 789]

People who train in terrorist camps and plot to kill Americans in terrorist attacks are not citizens and should lose those rights, IMO.

 

Hope that is simple enough for you.

So you're going to suspend people's citizenship based on allegations and without any sort of due process or finding of guilt. I guess if that's your opinion that's your opinion, but you should probably go find a new country to practice it because it goes against everything this country was founded on.

[Toro 3]

So you're going to suspend people's citizenship based on allegations and without any sort of due process or finding of guilt. I guess if that's your opinion that's your opinion, but you should probably go find a new country to practice it because it goes against everything this country was founded on.

 

[redneck from south park] "If you don't like it, you can GET OUT" [/redneck from south park]

 

 

You are hilarious.

[parrot 789]

[redneck from south park] "If you don't like it, you can GET OUT" [/redneck from south park]

 

 

You are hilarious.

[toro]"I've run out of strawmen and weak rhetoricals so I'm now resorting to South Park references"[/toro]

 

[Toro 3]

[toro]"I've run out of strawmen and weak rhetoricals so I'm now resorting to South Park references"[/toro]

 

 

I just love when someone disagrees with you and you automatically play the "you are an idiot" or the "you need to get out" card. Wonder why people don't vote for the democrats? Maybe it's people like you.

[parrot 789]

I just love when someone disagrees with you and you automatically play the "you are an idiot" or the "you need to get out" card. Wonder why people don't vote for the democrats? Maybe it's people like you.

You want to link to all the times I "automatically" employ this tactic, or just admit you pulled that accusation out of your ass?

 

I don't automatically play the "you need to get out" card when someone disagrees with me. I play that card when I seem them espousing ideas like 'the government should be able to susend your rights without any due process provided you're accused of a heinous enough crime' because it's so deeply at odds with the underlying principles of this nation.

 

People like me are the reason people don't vote for Democrats? What the fock does anything I've said have to do with Democrats? Just a convenient knee-jerk smear from someone with nothing rational to add I guess.

 

 

Also, I didn't call you an idiot, I called you an ass.

[Toro 3]

You want to link to all the times I "automatically" employ this tactic, or just admit you pulled that accusation out of your ass?

 

I don't automatically play the "you need to get out" card when someone disagrees with me. I play that card when I seem them espousing ideas like 'the government should be able to susend your rights without any due process provided you're accused of a heinous enough crime' because it's so deeply at odds with the underlying principles of this nation.

 

People like me are the reason people don't vote for Democrats? What the fock does anything I've said have to do with Democrats? Just a convenient knee-jerk smear for someone with nothing to add I guess.

Also, I didn't call you an idiot, I called you an ass.

 

The ol' link me comeback. Hold on while I spend ten mintues researching how big of an ass you are.

 

Dude, I disagree with you. Get over yourself.

[parrot 789]

The ol' link me comeback. Hold on while I spend ten mintues researching how big of an ass you are.

 

Dude, I disagree with you. Get over yourself.

Yeah, that's right, link me, or STFU. TIA.

 

Get over myself? I'm the reason people don't vote for Democrats! That's pretty focking huge!

[Snuff 10]

Whoever gets the last word in this thread wins.

[Toro 3]

Yeah, that's right, link me, or STFU. TIA.

 

Get over myself? I'm the reason people don't vote for Democrats! That's pretty focking huge!

 

STFU? Whatever tough guy.

 

Keep on defending those terrorists.

[Isotopes 1]

STFU? Whatever tough guy.

 

Keep on defending those terrorists.

 

You are missing the point. He is not defending terrorists. He is defending the constitution and the ideals this country were built on. No one is saying let the terrorists run free.

[Toro 3]

You are missing the point. He is not defending terrorists. He is defending the constitution and the ideals this country were built on. No one is saying let the terrorists run free.

 

What he is saying is that american citizens should not be able to be labeled "enemy combatants". I disagreed.

[Strike 6,018]

What he is saying is that american citizens should not be able to be labeled "enemy combatants". I disagreed.

 

I suspect he'd be fine with you labeling them anything you choose, as long as you put them on trial. You should really bow out of this. This discussion requires intelligence, something you have shown time and time again that you lack.

[parrot 789]

STFU? Whatever tough guy.

I'd never get tough with you, I know you're probably packing your gat, even if it's just to go see what the dogs are barking at.

[Toro 3]

I suspect he'd be fine with you labeling them anything you choose, as long as you put them on trial. You should really bow out of this. This discussion requires intelligence, something you have shown time and time again that you lack.

 

I never said they should be denied trial.

 

Here comes Strike, jumping into an argument that wasn't his to begin with.

[parrot 789]

I never said they should be denied trial.

Okay, all snark aside; just what are you saying?

[Strike 6,018]

I never said they should be denied trial.

 

Here comes Strike, jumping into an argument that wasn't his to begin with.

 

Actually you pretty much did. You defended the government's handling of Jose Padilla and the fact that he hadn't had a trial. You then went on to suggest that if Osama Bin Laden were a U.S. citizen he wouldn't be entitled to a trial with all of it's "consitutional protections". But go ahead and back track short bus. It's what you do best when proven wrong.

[Uh-huh 0]

Ah, I see. So, according to you if I don't share the same priorities as you, then I don't deserve those very rights that you think all Americans are entitled to, nor do I deserve the safety that I desire so much.

 

You know, I'm pretty sure that's not what your boy Ben or the rest of the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Talk about going off on a tangent and drawing incorrect conclusions. Typical. This has nothing to do with your priorities versus my priorities.

 

It has everything to do with this: as a US citizen (assuming you are one), you have rights that came at a very high cost, paid in the blood of many patriotic citizens for over 230 years.

 

If you are willing to let people in the federal government limit or remove altogether any or all of those rights just because you want to gain a sense of security, then Ben's words apply to you.

 

If you are worried enough about your security that you are willing to let the government do whatever it deems "necessary" to fight terrorism, why not just march into a federal prison and give yourself up to the government's care? All you'll have to worry about then is remembering not to bend over in the shower.

[davebg 0]

Talk about going off on a tangent and drawing incorrect conclusions. Typical. This has nothing to do with your priorities versus my priorities.

 

It has everything to do with this: as a US citizen (assuming you are one), you have rights that came at a very high cost, paid in the blood of many patriotic citizens for over 230 years.

 

If you are willing to let people in the federal government limit or remove altogether any or all of those rights just because you want to gain a sense of security, then Ben's words apply to you.

 

If you are worried enough about your security that you are willing to let the government do whatever it deems "necessary" to fight terrorism, why not just march into a federal prison and give yourself up to the government's care? All you'll have to worry about then is remembering not to bend over in the shower.

How am I going off on a tanget or drawing incorrect conclusions when you repeat the same exact thing when you try to explain yourself.

 

There is a national debate on security vs. civil liberties. Rational people, regardless of which side they are on, can debate this and recognize that each of us can agree to disagree.

 

You, however, say that if I don't place civil liberties above security (in other words, agree with you), then I am a coward and don't deserve either my freedom or my security. Add to it that now the price of having an opinion that differs with your own is to be ass raped in the shower of a federal prison.

 

You, sir, are the coward. You are the one who claims to value these rights and freedoms that we have, yet have no problem suspending those rights when it comes to those who disagree with you.

 

Why is it that these days many of the people who scream the loudest in defense of our civil liberties are also the first to try to suspend or suppress the exercise of those same civil liberties by people on the other side of the debate?

 

You are like those students at Columbia U who protest the Minutemen b/c they are "racists" and un-American, while shouting racial epithets and storming the stage to prevent an invited speaker from exercising his right to free speech.

[Toro 3]

Okay, all snark aside; just what are you saying?

 

I am saying that your citizenship should not be the end all when it comes to matters of terrorism and national security. I think that US citizens, when found to be an enemy combatant, should be treated as such and should not be given special treatment because they happened to be born here.

 

I am not saying that there shouldn't be some checks and balances in place. I am not saying that these guys don't deserve some sort of trial. I am saying that an enemy of the state is an enemy of the state and should be treated accordingly, no matter what his citizenship is.

 

I can see your argument about eroding the constitutionally protected rights of American citizens, but this guy is not an ordinary american citizen. I just have a problem with the "Farenheit 451" arguments from everyone that if the administration did this to Padilla, what's going to stop them from coming for you next. You know what's going to stop them from coming after me next. I'm not a focking terrorist.

 

Don't get me wrong. I understand your argument and it is a very valid one. But I disagree.

[parrot 789]

Don't get me wrong. I understand your argument and it is a very valid one. But I disagree.

Fair enough. I guess I'll let you stay in the country.

[frank 2,345]

Whoever gets the last word in this thread wins.

 

 

boobies

[Toro 3]

Fair enough. I guess I'll let you stay in the country.

 

You should. I have a gun.

[Uh-huh 0]

How am I going off on a tanget or drawing incorrect conclusions when you repeat the same exact thing when you try to explain yourself.

 

There is a national debate on security vs. civil liberties. Rational people, regardless of which side they are on, can debate this and recognize that each of us can agree to disagree.

 

You, however, say that if I don't place civil liberties above security (in other words, agree with you), then I am a coward and don't deserve either my freedom or my security. Add to it that now the price of having an opinion that differs with your own is to be ass raped in the shower of a federal prison.

 

You, sir, are the coward. You are the one who claims to value these rights and freedoms that we have, yet have no problem suspending those rights when it comes to those who disagree with you.

 

Why is it that these days many of the people who scream the loudest in defense of our civil liberties are also the first to try to suspend or suppress the exercise of those same civil liberties by people on the other side of the debate?

 

You are like those students at Columbia U who protest the Minutemen b/c they are "racists" and un-American, while shouting racial epithets and storming the stage to prevent an invited speaker from exercising his right to free speech.

 

As Reagan said , "There you go again."

 

Are you having trouble understanding English? I know that's a trite FFT response, but in your case I'm beginning to believe it's appropriate.

 

You have a right to say anything you please, no matter how crazy I think it is. By the same token, others will be free to judge whom you are by what you say. You've articulated a position which I think is wrong, and I've told you why I think it is wrong. Your answer is to accuse me of somehow 'restricting' your rights.

 

Just in case, I'll repeat it in very simple terms: If you are willing to let the government take away your civil liberties in favor of security, you are succumbing to fear and terror. I agree it doesn't necessarily make you a coward. But in my opinion it does make you unappreciative and undeserving of those civil rights.

 

If you are just mindlessly ranting, let us know when you're done.

[davebg 0]

You have a right to say anything you please, no matter how crazy I think it is. By the same token, others will be free to judge whom you are by what you say. You've articulated a position which I think is wrong, and I've told you why I think it is wrong. Your answer is to accuse me of somehow 'restricting' your rights.

Did you or did you not say:

If you value your own hide more than the liberties you have a right too, then you are a coward and don't deserve freedom or security.

And

If you are worried enough about your security that you are willing to let the government do whatever it deems "necessary" to fight terrorism, why not just march into a federal prison and give yourself up to the government's care? All you'll have to worry about then is remembering not to bend over in the shower.

In other words, if you were in charge the price for having my opinion on this subject would be a suspension of those very same rights you claim to hold so dear and being labeled as a coward. All while recommending I just go directly to jail and hope not to get ass raped in the shower.

 

It is people like yourself who are perfect examples of how debate in this country has become paralyzed by partisanship. There are many people on the bored who I do not agree with. However, I think that a decent number of those people recognize the fact that they can have an open debate on the issues before us by exchanging ideas, points and counterpoints w/out resorting to name calling or childish responses like "if you don't belive this then you don't deserve that."

 

Those kind of responses are right up there w/:South Park Bumpkin: "If you don't like it, you can GET OUT!":South Park Bumpkin:

 

Feel free to reply (or don't)...I really don't care. I have come to realize that there are some people on this bored who are worth my time to discuss things with and some that are not. There are some people here who are willing to have an exchange of opinions and ideas, regardless of whether or not we will ever come to an agreement and some that are not.

 

You? Not.

[Uh-huh 0]

Did you or did you not say:And

 

In other words, if you were in charge the price for having my opinion on this subject would be a suspension of those very same rights you claim to hold so dear and being labeled as a coward. All while recommending I just go directly to jail and hope not to get ass raped in the shower.

 

It is people like yourself who are perfect examples of how debate in this country has become paralyzed by partisanship. There are many people on the bored who I do not agree with. However, I think that a decent number of those people recognize the fact that they can have an open debate on the issues before us by exchanging ideas, points and counterpoints w/out resorting to name calling or childish responses like "if you don't belive this then you don't deserve that."

 

Those kind of responses are right up there w/:South Park Bumpkin: "If you don't like it, you can GET OUT!":South Park Bumpkin:

 

Feel free to reply (or don't)...I really don't care. I have come to realize that there are some people on this bored who are worth my time to discuss things with and some that are not. There are some people here who are willing to have an exchange of opinions and ideas, regardless of whether or not we will ever come to an agreement and some that are not.

 

You? Not.

Are you done ranting yet? Or are you still going off the deep end? I read about 2 sentences of your "response". Then I realized that, faced with a position you can't challenge without looking like an idiot, you've decided to be deliberately obtuse in the hope of somehow scoring a point. You didn't.

 

Righteousness is a very unnattractive attribute. Especially when you don't have a leg to stand upon, given it's pretty obvious you're avoiding answering the original question: are you willing to let the government take away your civil rights to get a sense of security?

 

P.S. Quoting from South Park only seals the deal. If you have an intelligent, reasoned response to offer, get back to me. Otherwise keep ranting away and I'll keep and at you.

[DanXIII 8]

GAWD, where do you people find the time to find THIS sh!t! There is no competing with someone like this because I am not undertaking the effort required for a college level research project just to prove my point in a Fantasy Football based political forum.

 

When a controversial piece of legislation is passed I like to take the time to actually read it (unlike most of our elected officials). There's always *time*...like between episodes of porn viewing for example.

[Toro 3]

When a controversial piece of legislation is passed I like to take the time to actually read it (unlike most of our elected officials). There's always *time*...like between episodes of porn viewing for example.

 

I'm usually having to clean up.