Constitutional rights be-gone!

[Wolseley]

You'll never take me alive, coppers.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by wildernesse
It's interesting, but some people seem always to be better at flaming than getting the facts straight. Also, they would rather make things personal than deal with an actual issue.

Of course, in the issue dealing with Padilla, the only real debate/discussion could be about whether enemy combatants are subject to different due process than other criminals, and whether that's warranted under the Constitution.

--tibac

As I understand it, there is a tremendous seperation of powers issue here as well. I mean, if the executive branch can bypass the congress and establish military tribunals, and then violate its own (unconstitutional) executive order and stick some US citizen in a brig, then that executive branch may just be a bit more powerful than it should be.

-jon

 

[LouisBooth]

Hmm..well the guy is stalking me, made thread and even showed me the gun and said he would kill me with it..what? You can't help me until he does something? Oh..thanks anyway officer..

LOL..great thinking guys.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Hmm..well the guy is stalking me, made thread and even showed me the gun and said he would kill me with it..what? You can't help me until he does something? Oh..thanks anyway officer..

LOL..great thinking guys.

 

Did I say anything about requiring that Padilla does something [with a dirty bomb] before he is charged and tried? Anything at all? Whatsoever?

Please tell me if I did, so I can correct this grievous error on my part. If not, your post was naught but a sarcastic straw man.

[Editted to add the text in brackets.]


-jon

 

[LouisBooth]

"Did I say anything about requiring that Padilla does something before he is charged and tried? Anything at all? Whatsoever? "

context. get it, you need it

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Did I say anything about requiring that Padilla does something before he is charged and tried? Anything at all? Whatsoever? "

context. get it, you need it

I may have made myself more clear with my edit. If not, please post the statements of mine that were interpretted as saying Padilla would have to do something with a dirty bomb before he could be charged for a crime.

-jon

 

[LouisBooth]

Let me restate..Context.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Let me restate..Context.

Okay, perhaps I'm missing the obvious but I'm not following you.

-jon

 

[LouisBooth]

Then maybe my post wasn't directed to you. Don't think its all about you Jon

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Then maybe my post wasn't directed to you. Don't think its all about you Jon

Oh, in that case I would have appreciated you simply say answer my question with something like, "no you did not imply anything about da da da. . ." but I guess it's settled now.

Out of curiousity, who on earth was your post about the stalker directed to?

-jon

 

[jon1101]

Now, back to the actual issue (and away from talk of lynching Wosley or flaming liberals). . .

I still maintain that the Bush administration has taken unconstitutional power and deprived an individual of his rights as a United States citizen. Where am I wrong?

-jon

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by HazyRigby
Kettle, you're black...

Worshiper of rabbits, well that sort of says it all.

 

[HazyRigby]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
Worshiper of rabbits, well that sort of says it all.

Worshiper of imaginary friends in the sky? Well, that sort of says it all.

 

[Morat]

"Did I say anything about requiring that Padilla does something before he is charged and tried? Anything at all? Whatsoever? "

context. get it, you need it

   Don't you feel that's unnecessarily combative? Especially for a mod?

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by Morat
   Don't you feel that's unnecessarily combative? Especially for a mod?

Well, I didn't take it to be terribly offensive. . . although it was the slightest bit vague.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled debate. And please, enough with the ad homonym excrement. *glances sharply at gunnysgt*

-jon

 

[Morat]

  Eh, you're right. I suppose what I felt was so..combative..about it was the sort of rhetoric feel to it. The implication that he didn't actually need to bother speaking full sentences to you, since your point was so obviously wrong as to not need the common courtesy of a complete response.

 

 

[Starscream]

Let me take a shot at an LB'esque response...

The implication that he didn't actually need to <I>bother</I> speaking full sentences to you, since your point was so obviously wrong as to not need the common courtesy of a complete response.

LOL!&nbsp; Jesus himself could give you a complete response and you'd still not believe it.&nbsp; Nope, read my other thread, I already answered that.

.

.

Well?&nbsp; How'd I do?&nbsp; Do I get the part?

Now, back to our regularly scheduled debate. And <I>please</I>, enough with the ad homonym excrement.

Okay, okay ... Jon, sheesh.

The way I see it, no one is suggesting that possible 'enemy-combatants' should be left to their own devices.&nbsp; We just think that everyone should be entitled to the same rights.&nbsp; If the Justice Department has evidence (like they claim) about this guy then why do they need these special privaleges?&nbsp; It just doesn't make sense.

Also, don't we owe it to ourselves to be the morally superior ones here?&nbsp; How are we to gain the support (and possible sympathy) of our would-be allies if we just bully anyone around that seems 'suspicious'?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Eh, you're right. I suppose what I felt was so..combative..about it was the sort of rhetoric feel to it. The implication that he didn't actually need to bother speaking full sentences to you, since your point was so obviously wrong as to not need the common courtesy of a complete response."

Mor, Cancer has a habit of not reading into things (that I have seen anyway). Maybe a good characteristic we should grab on to.


*sigh* star as always you're in great form. I'd nominate you the flammer of the year. Its only because its about me that I didn't warn you.