Rainbo 0 #101 March 2, 2004 Again, I guess my point is unclear to some. I am not talking about what was developed in the last dacade. I am talking about what was there from before. Every report filed by UN inspectors acknowledged that they could not account for what was already in place according to Iraqi authorities. I guess that those who do not want to acknowledge what had occurred for years prior will not, and I won't waste my time pointing out what seems to be common sense issues to me. I am but a simple man, who enjoys simple pleasures. RainboRainbo TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything "Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,153 #102 March 2, 2004 QuoteEvery report filed by UN inspectors acknowledged that they could not account for what was already in place according to Iraqi authorities. True, but that does not prove there are WMDs. IMHO does not qualify a person in power telling the people of america that he knows where those WMDs are. Isn't enough to go and kill a couple of thousand people, only to find out you were wrong. I wonder how much support the Bush administration would have had if it made a statement like: We think they may have WMDs but we are not quite sure. The UN has asked for a couple of more moths to givea final answer to this quesiton. That however is not good enough for us, we are going to invade Iraq to satisfy our hunch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #103 March 2, 2004 >Every report filed by UN inspectors acknowledged that they could not >account for what was already in place according to Iraqi authorities. ?? Most of the controversy surrounding the inspection was that the Iraqi authorities kept claiming they did NOT have WMD's, and we were positive they did. The UN inspector's reports were primarily negative, apart from traces of chemicals in old shells and rockets that exceeded the range limitations of the ceasfire agreements. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #104 March 2, 2004 Quote the guilt by association thing was just focused twards the terrorists at camp Xray. I understand where it was focussed and it doesn't make a difference. I'm saying that All the things about America that make it a thing of beauty contradict the very notion of "Guilty by association"... The fact that people cannot be labeled and condemned without due process is at the very core of your constitution. Furthermore, saying that the American should have the right to council but the others shouldn't also violates what makes you special. The constitution is not about "All Americans being created equal" but about "All men being created equal". Let's not forget that. And let's not forget that a lot of this mess has to do solely with America policing the world, protecting the rights of NON-Americans all over this planet. Ask why we could invade Iraq for example, without proof of why we are doing it and you get "Sadam is an evil man, he was oppressing and gassing his people. The world is better and the Iraquis will be hapier without him.".... well, the Iraquis are clearly not Americans, yet we feel that their human rights should be protected no? I harbor a certain anti-Americanism within me for many reasons but I am not incapable of seeing the good that they provide to many. I'm not incapable of seeing how they could have their backs against the wall, having to do certain things. But we are now talking about a Gross Ignorance of their own constitution and a terrible contradiction of their very own values. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #105 March 2, 2004 Quoteonce again i say the same thing those are the bill of rights for the people of the united states. Citizens, not some terrorist who was caught during a war. we are dealing with a differet set of laws here... UCJM, Genevia convention, and so on not the constitution of the UNited States. im off to class be back in a few hours "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #106 March 2, 2004 That's taken out of context and does not mean that the world is entitled to mooch off the freedoms that my country fought so hard to get. "All men are created equal" in the context of The Declaration of Independence is establishing freedom for Americans. Not Al-Qaida terrorists. It also doesn't by default give them the right to our Judicial system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crzjp20 0 #107 March 2, 2004 dear lord i leave for a hour and it explodes in here. Ok so i know i am making great frineds in this room so i will make them better with this statment. The deceratino of indipendane was just that a decleration. It told england we are going to war with them and that we want our own freedom. It is not a document that our country is governed by. it does not issue civil liberties or civil rights. It is in its true essence a decleration of war. As for the pow thing... i think that the taliban soldgers should be keep at POWs, but i think that the terrists should be keep as enemy combatants. If i am not mistaken the taliban fighters held are pows but i may be wrong.-------------------------------------------------- Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #108 March 2, 2004 Quote Did Bush steal your girlfriend or something? No, but when his lips move I know not to trust what he says. What did you think of his doubletalk on veterans' benefits?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #109 March 2, 2004 QuoteThat's taken out of context and does not mean that the world is entitled to mooch off the freedoms that my country fought so hard to get. "All men are created equal" in the context of The Declaration of Independence is establishing freedom for Americans. Not Al-Qaida terrorists. It also doesn't by default give them the right to our Judicial system. Each human is entitled to freedom. However, nobody disagrees that if you murder your neighbor, that right is taken away as you are incarcerated. My friend, I agree with you whole-heartedly that many a human right is to be considered null and void in the face of a terrorist. What we've got here is a band of "Enemy Combatants" however and each and every one of them is entitled to certain things until it is proven that they are terrorists, criminals, soldier POWs or (gulp) none of the above. Failure to provide these humans their human rights is animalistic, there is no denying that. Execution for the terrorist, freedom for the innocent, torture and indefinite detention for the question marks? NO! With a little thought, you'd agree that that is what you Country fought so hard for. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #110 March 2, 2004 QuoteQuote Saying that John doesn't like Bush is like saying that Mt. Everest is a small hill. I've seen the liberal list of Bush's sins before. I don't think that he lied. I have a better analogy. It's like saying that a RECORD deficit predicted by his own budget director to last indefinitely is "small and short-lived". It's like saying the nation owes veterans the best possible care, and then cutting their benefits.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #111 March 2, 2004 Bill, the bill of rights does not cover foreigners the same way it covers citizens. It does not cover Americans outside the USA. It certainly does not apply to enemy combatants, legal or otherwise.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #112 March 2, 2004 Quote"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...." Well, since we're not allowed to say "Creator" in school anymore, maybe he never heard that. They may be created equal, but when they attack the USA and her troops, they shouldn't expect aid and comfort. Honestly, what does the Declaration have to do with whether sovereign law applies where there is international law?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #113 March 2, 2004 QuoteBill, the bill of rights does not cover foreigners the same way it covers citizens. It does not cover Americans outside the USA. It certainly does not apply to enemy combatants, legal or otherwise. Amendment XIV ...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #114 March 2, 2004 Quote Honestly, what does the Declaration have to do with whether sovereign law applies where there is international law? Well the point made about Gitmo (and not yet addressed by those defending it) is that neither law is being respected here... Only GWBs law. We've got a name for that type of system... We've ALL fought agaisnt that type of system. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #115 March 2, 2004 Quote within its jurisdiction Without having read the full text I wouldnt like to comment on whether or not the constitution covers non-Americans, but do you think the little bit I quoted is why they are kept at Guantanamo bay, instead of inside the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #116 March 2, 2004 And for the fifteenth freaking time, when it refers to person or the people, it mean citizens. I'd think you could understand that, or look it up for yourself. The constitution covers citizens inside the country and foreigners inside the country. It stops at Mexico and Canada, the Atlantic and the Pacific.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #117 March 2, 2004 QuoteWell the point made about Gitmo (and not yet addressed by those defending it) is that neither law is being respected here... Only GWBs law. What law should be followed there? They don't qualify for POW status, so what international laws or treaties do cover them? [no malice, I really don't know]witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #118 March 2, 2004 QuoteThe point is there are a lot of people who prefer to throw the term liar out there in reference to the pres. I am not a republican, but I took an oath many years ago that I still hold dear to my heart. I also was taught to respect people, especially those that hold that office. I do not agree with everything that has gone on. But on this subject I believe that people think it is easier for their agande to stick their head in the sand and ignore the FACTS. But I do not think that it is appropriate to use that term in reference to this subject. So until someone can prove that they are not there to call the pres a liar is unjustified. MY OPINION. Rainbo It's not only the "we know where they are" untruth. There's the "uranium from Africa" untruth that the White House had been told ahead of time was untrue, but used it in a speech anyway. It's the "they can deploy WMDs in 45 minutes" untruth, that the CIA had debunked two weeks before Bush used it. It's the "we found mobile WMD labs" untruth, when they turned out to be nothing of the sort. It's the "small and short-lived deficit" untruth, followed by policies that reduced revenues and increased expenditures and led to a RECORD deficit. It's the "veterans deserve the best care from the nation" speech, on the SAME DAY that he proposed cuts in veterans benefits. It's the "absolutely no nation building" untruth, followed by billions of dollars in nation building in Iraq. Either he's a liar, or he's totally incompetent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #119 March 2, 2004 QuoteAmendment XIV ...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws and if you want to read the last half of amendments and bold up some words, let's look at "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Wow, would you look at that. Things get interpretted in interesting ways, huh Kallend? Wow, would you look at that.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #120 March 2, 2004 QuoteWhat law should be followed there? They don't qualify for POW status, so what international laws or treaties do cover them? [no malice, I really don't know] Geneva convention. It's being ignored as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #121 March 2, 2004 QuoteAnd for the fifteenth freaking time, when it refers to person or the people, it mean citizens. I'd think you could understand that, or look it up for yourself. The constitution covers citizens inside the country and foreigners inside the country. It stops at Mexico and Canada, the Atlantic and the Pacific. If you truly believe the heart of the Constitution is a set of guidelines for an elite club, and that the intention was really not "All men" but "All these men", than I am very sad for your lack of understanding. I hope the children in your schools are learning different. Tell me of the double standard then. Why fight all over the world and claim you are doing it to protect the rights of all these NON-Americans... only to turn around and say your values apply solely to you and yours? Is it that the freedom and human rights of others only apply when it benefits you to fight for them? I'd like to think differently but please explain it to me. Be wary mind you, you are painting yourelf very near a corner. Are all people created equal? Or are all Americans created with the authority to decide who is entitled to basic human rights? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #122 March 2, 2004 Quoteand if you want to read the last half of amendments and bold up some words, let's look at "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Wow, would you look at that. Things get interpretted in interesting ways, huh Kallend? Wow, would you look at that. FYI.....you keep arguing that it only applies to citizens, but that's not true. Any foreigner in this country legally, and even usually illegally, gets the same constitutional amendments as the rest of us. Permanent residents without citizenship are even allowed to own guns and in many states, get a conceled carry permit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #123 March 2, 2004 QuoteAnd for the fifteenth freaking time, when it refers to person or the people, it mean citizens. I'd think you could understand that, or look it up for yourself. The constitution covers citizens inside the country and foreigners inside the country. It stops at Mexico and Canada, the Atlantic and the Pacific. Wrong. When it means citizens, it says "citizens". It also covers foreign treaties (which become the supreme law of the land), so it doesn't stop at the borders. It also constrains what the government may do, without any reference to geography.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #124 March 2, 2004 Quote and if you want to read the last half of amendments and bold up some words, let's look at "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Wow, would you look at that. Things get interpretted in interesting ways, huh Kallend? Wow, would you look at that. Have I disagreed with that?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #125 March 2, 2004 I wonder how much support the Bush administration would have had if it made a statement like: We think they may have WMDs but we are not quite sure. The UN has asked for a couple of more moths to givea final answer to this quesiton. That however is not good enough for us, we are going to invade Iraq to satisfy our hunch. Saddam had 12 years to comply. He bluffed until he ran out of time. If we didn't go into Iraq, SH would still be raping and torturing his fellow human beings. I don't care if Bush was wrong about WMD's, the world is a better place without Saddam in power. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #111 March 2, 2004 Bill, the bill of rights does not cover foreigners the same way it covers citizens. It does not cover Americans outside the USA. It certainly does not apply to enemy combatants, legal or otherwise.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #112 March 2, 2004 Quote"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...." Well, since we're not allowed to say "Creator" in school anymore, maybe he never heard that. They may be created equal, but when they attack the USA and her troops, they shouldn't expect aid and comfort. Honestly, what does the Declaration have to do with whether sovereign law applies where there is international law?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #113 March 2, 2004 QuoteBill, the bill of rights does not cover foreigners the same way it covers citizens. It does not cover Americans outside the USA. It certainly does not apply to enemy combatants, legal or otherwise. Amendment XIV ...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #114 March 2, 2004 Quote Honestly, what does the Declaration have to do with whether sovereign law applies where there is international law? Well the point made about Gitmo (and not yet addressed by those defending it) is that neither law is being respected here... Only GWBs law. We've got a name for that type of system... We've ALL fought agaisnt that type of system. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #115 March 2, 2004 Quote within its jurisdiction Without having read the full text I wouldnt like to comment on whether or not the constitution covers non-Americans, but do you think the little bit I quoted is why they are kept at Guantanamo bay, instead of inside the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #116 March 2, 2004 And for the fifteenth freaking time, when it refers to person or the people, it mean citizens. I'd think you could understand that, or look it up for yourself. The constitution covers citizens inside the country and foreigners inside the country. It stops at Mexico and Canada, the Atlantic and the Pacific.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #117 March 2, 2004 QuoteWell the point made about Gitmo (and not yet addressed by those defending it) is that neither law is being respected here... Only GWBs law. What law should be followed there? They don't qualify for POW status, so what international laws or treaties do cover them? [no malice, I really don't know]witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #118 March 2, 2004 QuoteThe point is there are a lot of people who prefer to throw the term liar out there in reference to the pres. I am not a republican, but I took an oath many years ago that I still hold dear to my heart. I also was taught to respect people, especially those that hold that office. I do not agree with everything that has gone on. But on this subject I believe that people think it is easier for their agande to stick their head in the sand and ignore the FACTS. But I do not think that it is appropriate to use that term in reference to this subject. So until someone can prove that they are not there to call the pres a liar is unjustified. MY OPINION. Rainbo It's not only the "we know where they are" untruth. There's the "uranium from Africa" untruth that the White House had been told ahead of time was untrue, but used it in a speech anyway. It's the "they can deploy WMDs in 45 minutes" untruth, that the CIA had debunked two weeks before Bush used it. It's the "we found mobile WMD labs" untruth, when they turned out to be nothing of the sort. It's the "small and short-lived deficit" untruth, followed by policies that reduced revenues and increased expenditures and led to a RECORD deficit. It's the "veterans deserve the best care from the nation" speech, on the SAME DAY that he proposed cuts in veterans benefits. It's the "absolutely no nation building" untruth, followed by billions of dollars in nation building in Iraq. Either he's a liar, or he's totally incompetent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #119 March 2, 2004 QuoteAmendment XIV ...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws and if you want to read the last half of amendments and bold up some words, let's look at "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Wow, would you look at that. Things get interpretted in interesting ways, huh Kallend? Wow, would you look at that.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #120 March 2, 2004 QuoteWhat law should be followed there? They don't qualify for POW status, so what international laws or treaties do cover them? [no malice, I really don't know] Geneva convention. It's being ignored as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #121 March 2, 2004 QuoteAnd for the fifteenth freaking time, when it refers to person or the people, it mean citizens. I'd think you could understand that, or look it up for yourself. The constitution covers citizens inside the country and foreigners inside the country. It stops at Mexico and Canada, the Atlantic and the Pacific. If you truly believe the heart of the Constitution is a set of guidelines for an elite club, and that the intention was really not "All men" but "All these men", than I am very sad for your lack of understanding. I hope the children in your schools are learning different. Tell me of the double standard then. Why fight all over the world and claim you are doing it to protect the rights of all these NON-Americans... only to turn around and say your values apply solely to you and yours? Is it that the freedom and human rights of others only apply when it benefits you to fight for them? I'd like to think differently but please explain it to me. Be wary mind you, you are painting yourelf very near a corner. Are all people created equal? Or are all Americans created with the authority to decide who is entitled to basic human rights? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #122 March 2, 2004 Quoteand if you want to read the last half of amendments and bold up some words, let's look at "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Wow, would you look at that. Things get interpretted in interesting ways, huh Kallend? Wow, would you look at that. FYI.....you keep arguing that it only applies to citizens, but that's not true. Any foreigner in this country legally, and even usually illegally, gets the same constitutional amendments as the rest of us. Permanent residents without citizenship are even allowed to own guns and in many states, get a conceled carry permit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #123 March 2, 2004 QuoteAnd for the fifteenth freaking time, when it refers to person or the people, it mean citizens. I'd think you could understand that, or look it up for yourself. The constitution covers citizens inside the country and foreigners inside the country. It stops at Mexico and Canada, the Atlantic and the Pacific. Wrong. When it means citizens, it says "citizens". It also covers foreign treaties (which become the supreme law of the land), so it doesn't stop at the borders. It also constrains what the government may do, without any reference to geography.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #124 March 2, 2004 Quote and if you want to read the last half of amendments and bold up some words, let's look at "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Wow, would you look at that. Things get interpretted in interesting ways, huh Kallend? Wow, would you look at that. Have I disagreed with that?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #125 March 2, 2004 I wonder how much support the Bush administration would have had if it made a statement like: We think they may have WMDs but we are not quite sure. The UN has asked for a couple of more moths to givea final answer to this quesiton. That however is not good enough for us, we are going to invade Iraq to satisfy our hunch. Saddam had 12 years to comply. He bluffed until he ran out of time. If we didn't go into Iraq, SH would still be raping and torturing his fellow human beings. I don't care if Bush was wrong about WMD's, the world is a better place without Saddam in power. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
