Quote:
The new law, called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, will allow rough treatment, so long as the President designates a practice not to be torture. But he is permitted to "interpret" international law forbidding torture to suit himself

The government, not the courts, will now be deciding what is cruel and inhumane treatment. Only monstrous abuse, reaching the level of a war crime, such as rape, mutilation, and the like, are expressly forbidden. And prisoners will not be granted legal counsel during interrogations

Quote:
And what are the people of the USA doing about it?

It's a "law", so it doesn't just "disappear"when Dubya leaves office, ya know.

What are YOU doing about it?

Quote:
The USA isn’t cutting off the heads of innocent people, or even guilty people, yet.

Yet...
(still gassing, electricuting or injecting the odd one though )

Quote:
I wish there was such a thing as unbiased reporting.

Quote:
Since you asked, nothing. The USA isn’t cutting off the heads of innocent people, or even guilty people, yet.

Quote:

Quote:
I wish there was such a thing as unbiased reporting.

http://www.reuters.com

Quote:
I think he nailed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

- Jon

Quote:

I wish there was such a thing as unbiased reporting.

Quote:

Quote:

I wish there was such a thing as unbiased reporting.

Then, by all means, tell us the real, unvarnished truth about the Military Commissions Act. Or, if that's too much work, I'll give you my version of the story, and you tell me where I'm being misled by the "liberal media."

Every legal analysis I've read of it, from left, right, and center, acknowledges that the act specifically entrusts the Executive Branch to decide who is an enemy combatant, and allows detainment of those enemy combatants without charges being brought aganst them, while giving them no ability to petition the courts to challenge their detention (via the suspension of habeas corps.) There is no specific exemption for U.S. citizens, either, though the Hamdi Supreme Court decision would presumably give citizens some kind of challenge.

So, where am I wrong?

Quote:
Nice dodge of the Aquestion. A future w?

Quote:
I wish there was such a thing as unbiased reporting.

Quote:

As he states "if that's too much work," .. and yes it is.

Quote:
And what are the people of the USA doing about it?

Quote:

Quote:
And what are the people of the USA doing about it?

Honestly, what CAN we do about it??

Quote:
I can think of only one thing: violently revolt. There is absolutely no other way to stop a rampant government than to forcefully remove it from power.

Quote:
Again I say, democracy is a joke. Pushing one button every four years is not "rule by the people". Citizens should have the right to approve or deny these individual Acts of dictatorship by vote, not by electing a "representative" who does whatever is best for their ego, their wallet, and their Napoleon Complex.

Quote:

Can't do that cause the liberals banned all the bad ass guns over the last 30 years. Everyone, including many of you here, laughed at the notion of a violent revolt to stop an out-of-control government. Looks like y'all shot yourselves in the foot on that one!
vernment never was a democracy. It's a republic.

Quote:

Yea, I was thinking of that as well. Why are the liberals getting so bent (we'll maybe just foreign liberals)

Quote:
Why are the liberals getting so bent (we'll maybe just foreign liberals) over the passing of a law to define the treatment of prisoners of war, which they think will take away their liberties. While they embrace gun laws that directly contradict the constitution and certainly take away liberties?

Quote:
I don't know if he's a liberal, though. But you just might want to look up that word as you go to actually read the text of w's "law".

Quote:
I don't know if he's a liberal, though. But you just might want to look up that word ..

Here's what the Firefox Dictionary Tooltip extension gives:

Quote:
Why is the civil liberty to carry guns the only one Republicans seem to care about while it's the only one Democrats don't seem to care about?

Quote:
Anyone declaring themselves anti-liberal is literally stating their opposition to democratic process, personal freedoms and capitalism. Perhaps this is why so much of the world thinks America is full of facists!

Quote:
Back in 1776, the state of the art in weapons technology was the flintlock rifle and the cannon. Today, it's the Abrams battle tank and the ICBM-delivered nuclear warhead. The lack of a ban on fully automatic weapons really isn't going to do you any good. Or are you suggesting that people should have tanks and missile silos at home?

In 1776 the best way for people to exercise their right to free speech was to gather in the local church. Today, we have modern printing presses and electronic communications technology. Or are you suggesting we should allow people to have access to newspapers, tv's, radios, and internet?

Quote:

Did you know that it was illegal for Jews to own firearms in Nazi Germany?

Quote:

Quote:

Did you know that it was illegal for Jews to own firearms in Nazi Germany?

Dunno. But that was true of USA citizens of Japanese ancestry during that same war -- they weren't really allowed to own anything other than a bedroll in the prison camps. Same story up here, by the way. Ugly.

-ml

Quote:
At the same time, there were no internment camps for the German-Americans. But that's okay. They were white.

Quote:
Why is the civil liberty to carry guns the only one Republicans seem to care about while it's the only one Democrats don't seem to care about?

Quote:

Quote:
Why is the civil liberty to carry guns the only one Republicans seem to care about while it's the only one Democrats don't seem to care about?

Do you have an answer in mind for this, or is it an honest question? Just curious because I do think it's a good question on both sides (assuming you mean "only" in a hyperbolic sense).

Quote:
At the same time, there were no internment camps for the German-Americans. But that's okay. They were white.

Quote:
At what stage would you personally start shooting?

Quote:
I'd rather die fighting a free man than live as a castrated government subject.

Quote:
Glib answers just undermine your point by showing that you have no valid response.

Should the average American citizen have access to an Abrams tank?

Quote:

Quote:
I'd rather die fighting a free man than live as a castrated government subject.

Assuming that you're a US citizen, why would you wait until the last possible minute?

Quote:
I think it's easlily demonstrable that the idea that someone could really defend himself against the US government with a stockpile of automatic weapons is absurd. No matter what, you are going to lose in a faceoff.

Quote:
I fail to see the importance of the rights of "enemy combatants"

Quote:
There has also never been a crime committed with a .50 BMG rifle, which is the new "evil" arch-enemy of the anti-gun activists.

Quote:
Unbelieveable.

Quote:
Could you explain to me under what epistemology Albert Petrosky's use of a .50 BMG rifle does not constitute a crime?

Quote:
In what other country can you freely ask "Just how much torture is torture?" I mean, In Kazhakstan, if you asked "Hey, can I take this guy and pretend to drown him?", they would probably take you out back and stab you to death. Likewise, in Syria, if you said "Hey, is it OK if I I slowly remove this guy's fingers with a blue-rubber-handled, stainless steel Channel-Lock nibbler?" I expect that the secret police would take you out back and put one in the base of your neck.

Quote:
I bet can find more crimes involving ice picks, ladders, swimming pools, ammonia, glass bottles, hammers, screwdrivers, nail guns, piano wire, blunt objects, etc etc. And that's just within a few years. It doesn't take a rifle to kill someone.

Quote:
I think it's easlily demonstrable that the idea that someone could really defend himself against the US government with a stockpile of automatic weapons is absurd. No matter what, you are going to lose in a faceoff.

Quote:
Perhaps we'd lose a modern revolutionary war, or perhaps not, but I'd rather die fighting a free man than live as a castrated government subject.

Quote:
One person can't, but 200 million can.

Quote:
...but you can't get many someones to simply vote in their best interests.

Quote:
It would be interesting to see what history says 100 years from now. After all, history is defined tofit the times.

Real history, or American movie makers version of it?

Quote:
Again I say, democracy is a joke. Pushing one button every four years is not "rule by the people". Citizens should have the right to approve or deny these individual Acts of dictatorship by vote, not by electing a "representative" who does whatever is best for their ego, their wallet, and their Napoleon Complex.

Quote:
The Sunday Times
October 29, 2006

BRITISH people are now more spied upon by their political leaders than any other population in the free world, according to an official report.

The linkage of databases and surveillance systems mean people are now having their movements tracked, habits profiled and photograph taken hundreds of times a day. The findings, in a report compiled on behalf of Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, raised concerns that Britain is “waking up in a surveillance society”.

...

“They don’t know, for instance, that a record is kept of every internet site they visit. They don’t realise that when identity cards come in, there will be a record of their movements and every time they have engaged with any public service.”

...

The report, compiled by surveillance experts and academics, points out that a typical Briton will be caught on camera up to 300 times a day. Britain now has 4.2m public CCTV cameras, or one for every 14 people, more than any other country.

Other examples of surveillance highlighted by the report include the growing use of automatic number plate recognition to track people’s journeys and the long-term retention of logs detailing the websites people visit at home.

...

He cited an example of a schoolgirl whose playground banter resulted in her father being refused work because he had been classed as a suspected paedophile. “The little girl was overheard saying, ‘My dad bonked me last night’. A dinner lady heard this and reported it to the school authorities,” Thomas said. Social services discovered that the girl was referring to her father tapping her playfully on the head with an inflatable hammer. The file was closed, but five years later the father discovered he was still a suspected sex offender.

Quote:
British the most spied-on people in western world

Quote:
The Sunday Times