Torture now legal
§nühw¤£f
of a Package Deal: you loose any and all rights and are a NONPERSON.
Hint: 3rd paragraph down.
--
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/22-10
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Buffalo
�n�hw��f wrote:
> Who knew? Its okey dokey if you get detaind by d military...its all
> part of a Package Deal: you loose any and all rights and are a
> NONPERSON.
>
>
http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html
>
> Hint: 3rd paragraph down.
So, do you really think this hasn't been happening in the past?
C'mon
Buffalo
richard
> Who knew? Its okey dokey if you get detaind by d military...its all part
> of a Package Deal: you loose any and all rights and are a NONPERSON.
>
> http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html
>
> Hint: 3rd paragraph down.
Do you really believe that bullshit?
Noting that the actual case was not even referred to by a docket number.
Then in that third paragraph, I read the immortal words once implemented by
a certain Bush, "Enemy combatant".
Bullshit. There is no such law. That came from a memo sent by one previous
president. And the only time in history that "enemy combatant" was even
enforced, the courts demanded the government release the guy.
I'm sorry, but no, it is unconstitutional for the military to arrest or
even detain a non-military person. Period. At least not under this farce.
This guy is just mouthing off about something he knows very little of.
Where's the proof?
richard
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:26:38 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry, but no, it is unconstitutional for the military to arrest or
>>even detain a non-military person. Period.
>
> So, as a civilian, I can go to a military base, and do whatever the
> hell I want, and they can't arrest me?
>
> Sweet.
Just like anywhere else, if you're not military, you get turned over to
civil authorities.
What ever you did on the base would probably be covered by a state or a
federal law.
Let's say you kill 5 people on a military base. You get tried in a state
court under state laws, not military.
Iain Milch
"Evan Platt" <ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news:qc0ej5lca4rh33fld...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:22:50 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Just like anywhere else, if you're not military, you get turned over to
> >civil authorities.
> >What ever you did on the base would probably be covered by a state or a
> >federal law.
> >Let's say you kill 5 people on a military base. You get tried in a state
> >court under state laws, not military.
>
> they couldn't.
Wouldn't that be covered under citizens arrest.
> --
> To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail
address.
§nühw¤£f
WTF?
America cant claim the moral high ground in any conflict as long as
we're engaging in behavior like this. It *justifies* the reaction of the
people on the other side of the debate. We torture; they react.
See the fucking pattern here?
Buffalo
�n�hw��f wrote:
> Buffalo wrote:
>> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>> Who knew? Its okey dokey if you get detaind by d military...its all
>>> part of a Package Deal: you loose any and all rights and are a
>>> NONPERSON.
>>>
>>>
>>
http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html
>>> Hint: 3rd paragraph down.
>>
>>
>> So, do you really think this hasn't been happening in the past?
>> C'mon
>> Buffalo
>>
> So the crimes of the past justify the crimes of the present?
> WTF?
> America cant claim the moral high ground in any conflict as long as
> we're engaging in behavior like this. It *justifies* the reaction of
> the people on the other side of the debate. We torture; they react.
> See the fucking pattern here?
I've seen the pattern for many years. Are you just starting to realize it?
Buffalo
thanatoid
news:hh8ets$osq$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
<SNIP>
> I've seen the pattern for many years. Are you just starting
> to realize it? Buffalo
These and many other abuses have been going for ages. But now
they are IN PRINT as LAW. That's the difference. If the Geneva
Convention meant anything and had any actual power they could
probably have that "modification" struck down as contrary to
human rights in every sense - even though I doubt /any/
international tribunal has the power to change any given
country's laws. But a lot of noise could be made about it.
Interesting how someone supposedly connected to (what I now
consider semi-fictional) Al-Qaeda just "somehow" managed to have
an explosive device onboard a US flight - it just happened to
"malfunction" so the plane didn't blow up. I love how all these
little distractions and coincidences add up to the beautiful
picture in front of those who have eyes. What a great game they
are all playing.
And it's just going to get worse. Brave New World indeed.
§nühw¤£f
"Oh yawn, this is all so familiar..."
I reiterate: america cant claim moral authority if america chooses to
act in immoral ways.
Simple
Fucking
Logic
^_^
HEMI-Powered
...
>> So, do you really think this hasn't been happening in the past?
>> C'mon
>> Buffalo
>>
> So the crimes of the past justify the crimes of the present?
> WTF?
> America cant claim the moral high ground in any conflict as long
> as we're engaging in behavior like this. It *justifies* the
> reaction of the
> people on the other side of the debate. We torture; they
> react.
That's the standard liberal view of things, "oh, we're taking the
moral high ground yet torturning prisoners." Crap! First, remember
Sherman who said "war is Hell." Then, consider that our enemies
have NO compunctions against any and all techniques fair and foul
to defeat the United States. Then, finish the thought by not
lowering, but UPPING our use of techniques in war that scare the
living shit outta our enemies to the point where they don't want to
attack us. Instead of ocddling al Qaeda and putting them on trial
in the US with the full protection of the Constitution, why not use
their method: AFTER "enhanced interrogation methods" are used to
extract any useful intelligence, summarily execute the prisoners in
a public place using the traditional Muslim punishment of stoning
to death? And, for the more egregious of our enemies, a public
beheading. Of course, we should leave the dead bodies where they
dropped as a warning to their comrades that if you Fuck with us,
you die.
Now, let's get around to the real question: what was YOUR role in
defending your country, running off to Canada like a coward to
avoid the draft?
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the right
things" - Peter Drucker
HEMI-Powered
...
> These and many other abuses have been going for ages. But now
> they are IN PRINT as LAW. That's the difference. If the Geneva
> Convention meant anything and had any actual power they could
> probably have that "modification" struck down as contrary to
> human rights in every sense - even though I doubt /any/
> international tribunal has the power to change any given
> country's laws. But a lot of noise could be made about it.
Keep in mind that the most vicious of our enemies throughout
history NEVER signed the Geneva Accord, so why should we treat them
humanely when they torture and KILL not only our troops on the
battlefield, but civilians in their own country or even ours?
> Interesting how someone supposedly connected to (what I now
> consider semi-fictional
semi-fictional? You don't believe these beasts are real?!
) Al-Qaeda just "somehow" managed to have
> an explosive device onboard a US flight - it just happened to
> "malfunction" so the plane didn't blow up. I love how all these
> little distractions and coincidences add up to the beautiful
> picture in front of those who have eyes. What a great game they
> are all playing.
>
The idiot with the bomb wasn't too bright. Instead of trying to
explode his bomb as the plane was in the landing approach, far
better to explode it at altitude while the fuel tanks are also
full.
The really sad part, though, is how the twits in DHS including Sec.
Janet thinking after the fact to new rules. Don't those fools
understand that our enemies are UNlikely to use attack methods for
which they know we're already checking? And, the fool in the Black
House must've lost his way in calling this an act of terrorism. I
thought he'd abolished "war on terror" in favor of "man caused
disaster". So, wasn't this an attempted man caused disaster and not
terrorism? Instead of going around the world kissing the ass of our
countries enemies, we need a Teddy Rossevelt stance - speak
software and carry a big stick.
§nühw¤£f
Go stand in the corner.
^_^
Aardvark
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> §nühw¤£f added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
Piggy-backing on snuh's post.
If enough Americans adopt that kind of attitude they deserve what they get.
> You're a fucking idiot.
> Go stand in the corner.
>
> ^_^
I agree.
Carry on.
--
Like one that on a lonesome road Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on, And turns no more his head,
Because he knows some frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread.
-Samuel Taylor Coleridge 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner', 1797
Jock Strappe
snip
>
> Now, let's get around to the real question: what was YOUR role in
> defending your country, running off to Canada like a coward to avoid the
> draft?
What was yours? Renewing your student deferment to avoid the draft?
--
Jock
§nühw¤£f
complain. But they were sold a load of bollix by the agitprop machine.
So they *think* its about some "protecting democracy" thing but its
really about expanding Uhmurikus hold on resources in other countries.
>
>> You're a fucking idiot.
>> Go stand in the corner.
>>
>> ^_^
>
> I agree.
>
> Carry on.
>
Avatar is secretly subversive:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/982
Navi=Iraqi
thanatoid
news:Xns9CEEE13DFBD...@216.196.97.131:
> thanatoid added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>> These and many other abuses have been going for ages. But
>> now they are IN PRINT as LAW. That's the difference. If
>> the Geneva Convention meant anything and had any actual
>> power they could probably have that "modification" struck
>> down as contrary to human rights in every sense - even
>> though I doubt /any/ international tribunal has the power
>> to change any given country's laws. But a lot of noise
>> could be made about it.
>
> Keep in mind that the most vicious of our enemies
> throughout history NEVER signed the Geneva Accord, so why
> should we treat them humanely when they torture and KILL
> not only our troops on the battlefield, but civilians in
> their own country or even ours?
Eye for an eye, huh? BTW, the savages you speak of treat our
prisoners a lot better than we treat our OWN citizens, and don't
believe what you read/see in the news, Remember how Saddam
Hussein had all those WMD factories hidden in mobile homes all
over the place so it was our God-Granted Duty to go and blow his
country up and kill as many of them as possible? Right.
Did you know the US has torture camps in various "friendly"
countries around the world?
The US is the principal terrorist and international law-breaker
in the world today (and the /partial/ clue as to why is in your
idiotic nym). Somewhere along the way the USA decided the world
and all its resources /in fact belonged/ to the USA, regardless
of where they were located and who actually had the rights to
them. Almost makes you wish for the good old days when the USSR
were "the bad guys".
>> Interesting how someone supposedly connected to (what I
>> now consider semi-fictional
>
> semi-fictional? You don't believe these beasts
Beasts?
> are real?!
It was a slight hyperbole. Considering who they actually might
or might not be and what the American poli-media machine has
made of them - to protect the REAL guilty parties - I feel
justified in calling them semi-fictional. SEMI-fictional, not
"fictional".
> ) Al-Qaeda just "somehow" managed to have
>> an explosive device onboard a US flight - it just happened
>> to "malfunction" so the plane didn't blow up. I love how
>> all these little distractions and coincidences add up to
>> the beautiful picture in front of those who have eyes.
>> What a great game they are all playing.
>>
> The idiot with the bomb wasn't too bright. Instead of
> trying to explode his bomb as the plane was in the landing
> approach, far better to explode it at altitude while the
> fuel tanks are also full.
The point is they make you take off you fucking shoes and take
off you belt and remove the coins and won't let you bring a
bottle of water on the plane, but HE got on with the device.
KINDA MAKES YOU WONDER - /again/...
> The really sad part, though, is how the twits in DHS
> including Sec. Janet thinking after the fact to new rules.
> Don't those fools understand that our enemies are UNlikely
> to use attack methods for which they know we're already
> checking?
Well, THAT guy sure was successful... KINDA MAKES YOU WONDER -
/again/...
> And, the fool
He's no fool, just a politician at the helm of the most
dangerous country in the world.
> in the Black House must've lost his
> way in calling this an act of terrorism. I thought he'd
> abolished "war on terror" in favor of "man caused
> disaster".
You shouldn't pay ANY attention to what ANY politician says.
Watching/reading the news is a total and complete waste of time.
> So, wasn't this an attempted man caused disaster
> and not terrorism?
Huh?
> Instead of going around the world
> kissing the ass of our countries enemies, we need a Teddy
> Rossevelt stance - speak software and carry a big stick.
Well, sign up for the army and go blow them "beasts" up, big
boy.