Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Afghanistan and Iraq.....

Recommended Posts

Guest

Whatever, he says, when given facts, little grasshopper must hang onto his emotional based I hate Bush, therefore he ignores Anything that disagrees with that premise.

Poor little grasshopper, you will mature someday, but just not today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Whatever, he says, when given facts, little grasshopper must hang onto his emotional based I hate Bush, therefore he ignores Anything that disagrees with that premise.

Poor little grasshopper, you will mature someday, but just not today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Jag, they are not going to believe a word anyone says unless it comes from CNN and/or the other news outlets except for FOX.


About time someone come's out and says it.

Nice Lost, couldn't have said it better myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Jag, they are not going to believe a word anyone says unless it comes from CNN and/or the other news outlets except for FOX.


About time someone come's out and says it.

Nice Lost, couldn't have said it better myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... I'm so shocked to be confronted by these FACTS.

OK, you are saying that Syria received Iraqi WMDs. One story has to do with Iraq supposedly shipping crates of WMDs to the Assad government. That was the first story from WorldNet Daily. WORLDNET DAILY! Wow now there's a highly respected and sought after news source if I ever saw one.

Do you know who runs WorldNet Daily? The Editor is Joseph Farah, he is a journalist (and I use that term loosely) and an author (I also use that term loosely). He is RIGHT WING. More right wing than maybe even you LIS. This guy has collaborated with Rush Limbaugh and has a radio show on some cheesed Internet network that has a guest list that is a who's who of Right Wing propagandists. Gee, do you think that Mr. Farah is IMPARTIAL in his reporting? I don't see any proof whatsoever I just hear BS from some "source". The same kind of BS that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were sold by their boy Chalabi.

Then you put up a link to a second story. I suppose that the second story was going to somehow support the first. Welp, I'm sorry it didn't. SYRIA is a SCUMBAG country, of this there is no doubt. Do I believe that Syria might be engaged in terrorism and perhaps the manufacture of WMDs ... ABSOLUTELY. What I am not convinced of however, is that the Iraqi WMDs somehow got funneled to Syria, and NOWHERE IN THAT CNN STORY IS THAT EVEN ALLUDED TO.

Another rookie effort. I won't accept anything that isn't reported by mainstream media? No. Let me clarify. I won't support anything reported by the WHACKO FRINGE, on either side of the aisle. Period, the end.

NO WMDs is NO WMDs. I know he had them, why? Because Reagan gave them to him. Saddam's biological arsenal was US made. However these things have a shelf life and between the UN inspections (more WMDs were destroyed by UN inspectors than by the US during Gulf War I and Gulf War II it's a fact check it out!) and bombings conducted by US and British planes from time to time his arsenal was DESTROYED.

It is even in major debate if he had anything beyond 1991 that was of sufficient quantity or quality to deem that he even POSSESSED WMDs after that date.

General Kamel's report to the UN and CIA says NO WMDS Funny nobody reported about this story! How the hell did that happen?

Remember the lovely coloring book like illustrations of mobile weapons making labs that he presented to the Security Council? Remember how he showed you those satellite photos of the decontamination vehicles. Did you know that they've fact checked Powell's information?

LIES, LIES, LIES YEAH.

You guys want to color EVERYBODY that says, "Hey wait a minute, none of this was TRUE," as a bunch of morons. Funny coming from guys that still believe it even though there is not ONE shread of evidence to support the WMD argument. Farah doesn't have EVIDENCE. He has some "source". BRING ME THE EVIDENCE. PRODUCE IT. Otherwise just move it along like Bush did (why didn't he cart out Farah to explain this funneling thing to us) to the, "He was a bad man," argument. Sure that's not the REASON WE WENT (because nobody would have agreed to it) but now that we're there what the hell... right?

Gentlemen, I kick you in the nuts and send you to the mat hard in every argument we ever have and still you maniacs somehow think you're on a moral and intellectual high-ground. You're as deluded in your assessment of the outcome of our debates as you are in your belief that G.W. has the goods on WMDs. HERE ARE THE FACTS AS THEY ARE KNOWN. I stated them. Your facts are CRAP... where are the WMDs? I'll say it again and again and again. You can tell me Santa Claus took them to the North Pole but you better have some HARD FACTS AND INTEL to support it.

Looks like Little Grasshopper is on top, Game, Set, Match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... I'm so shocked to be confronted by these FACTS.

OK, you are saying that Syria received Iraqi WMDs. One story has to do with Iraq supposedly shipping crates of WMDs to the Assad government. That was the first story from WorldNet Daily. WORLDNET DAILY! Wow now there's a highly respected and sought after news source if I ever saw one.

Do you know who runs WorldNet Daily? The Editor is Joseph Farah, he is a journalist (and I use that term loosely) and an author (I also use that term loosely). He is RIGHT WING. More right wing than maybe even you LIS. This guy has collaborated with Rush Limbaugh and has a radio show on some cheesed Internet network that has a guest list that is a who's who of Right Wing propagandists. Gee, do you think that Mr. Farah is IMPARTIAL in his reporting? I don't see any proof whatsoever I just hear BS from some "source". The same kind of BS that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were sold by their boy Chalabi.

Then you put up a link to a second story. I suppose that the second story was going to somehow support the first. Welp, I'm sorry it didn't. SYRIA is a SCUMBAG country, of this there is no doubt. Do I believe that Syria might be engaged in terrorism and perhaps the manufacture of WMDs ... ABSOLUTELY. What I am not convinced of however, is that the Iraqi WMDs somehow got funneled to Syria, and NOWHERE IN THAT CNN STORY IS THAT EVEN ALLUDED TO.

Another rookie effort. I won't accept anything that isn't reported by mainstream media? No. Let me clarify. I won't support anything reported by the WHACKO FRINGE, on either side of the aisle. Period, the end.

NO WMDs is NO WMDs. I know he had them, why? Because Reagan gave them to him. Saddam's biological arsenal was US made. However these things have a shelf life and between the UN inspections (more WMDs were destroyed by UN inspectors than by the US during Gulf War I and Gulf War II it's a fact check it out!) and bombings conducted by US and British planes from time to time his arsenal was DESTROYED.

It is even in major debate if he had anything beyond 1991 that was of sufficient quantity or quality to deem that he even POSSESSED WMDs after that date.

General Kamel's report to the UN and CIA says NO WMDS Funny nobody reported about this story! How the hell did that happen?

Remember the lovely coloring book like illustrations of mobile weapons making labs that he presented to the Security Council? Remember how he showed you those satellite photos of the decontamination vehicles. Did you know that they've fact checked Powell's information?

LIES, LIES, LIES YEAH.

You guys want to color EVERYBODY that says, "Hey wait a minute, none of this was TRUE," as a bunch of morons. Funny coming from guys that still believe it even though there is not ONE shread of evidence to support the WMD argument. Farah doesn't have EVIDENCE. He has some "source". BRING ME THE EVIDENCE. PRODUCE IT. Otherwise just move it along like Bush did (why didn't he cart out Farah to explain this funneling thing to us) to the, "He was a bad man," argument. Sure that's not the REASON WE WENT (because nobody would have agreed to it) but now that we're there what the hell... right?

Gentlemen, I kick you in the nuts and send you to the mat hard in every argument we ever have and still you maniacs somehow think you're on a moral and intellectual high-ground. You're as deluded in your assessment of the outcome of our debates as you are in your belief that G.W. has the goods on WMDs. HERE ARE THE FACTS AS THEY ARE KNOWN. I stated them. Your facts are CRAP... where are the WMDs? I'll say it again and again and again. You can tell me Santa Claus took them to the North Pole but you better have some HARD FACTS AND INTEL to support it.

Looks like Little Grasshopper is on top, Game, Set, Match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Poor little Grasshopper, still claiming that Syria does NOT have Iraq's WMD's.

Problem is Little Grasshopper, that Syria DOES have Iraq's WMD's, or a very good portion of them.

Poor little Grasshopper. clueless, as usual.

Gotta HATE bush, and facts are not going to get in the way!!!

You, a conservative? ROFLMAO!!! Yeah, right, sure thing!! ROFLMAO!!!

Your liberal lack of thinking skills is showing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Poor little Grasshopper, still claiming that Syria does NOT have Iraq's WMD's.

Problem is Little Grasshopper, that Syria DOES have Iraq's WMD's, or a very good portion of them.

Poor little Grasshopper. clueless, as usual.

Gotta HATE bush, and facts are not going to get in the way!!!

You, a conservative? ROFLMAO!!! Yeah, right, sure thing!! ROFLMAO!!!

Your liberal lack of thinking skills is showing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Gentlemen, I kick you in the nuts and send you to the mat hard in every argument we ever have and still you maniacs somehow think you're on a moral and intellectual high-ground. You're as deluded in your assessment of the outcome of our debates as you are in your belief that G.W. has the goods on WMDs.

MAN!!!....Is'nt THAT the TRUTH!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Gentlemen, I kick you in the nuts and send you to the mat hard in every argument we ever have and still you maniacs somehow think you're on a moral and intellectual high-ground. You're as deluded in your assessment of the outcome of our debates as you are in your belief that G.W. has the goods on WMDs.

MAN!!!....Is'nt THAT the TRUTH!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by street:

quote:

Gentlemen, I kick you in the nuts and send you to the mat hard in every argument we ever have and still you maniacs somehow think you're on a moral and intellectual high-ground. You're as deluded in your assessment of the outcome of our debates as you are in your belief that G.W. has the goods on WMDs.

MAN!!!....Is'nt THAT the TRUTH!!


Poor Street, he actually thinks that little Grasshopper knows what he is talking about.

ROFLMAO!! Well, I guess he has to, since Little Grasshopper is the only one goofy enough to continue speaking his nonsense, besides street.

Hey, the 2 crazies HAVE to stick together, otherwise they might get some actual facts that would destroy thier arguments.

I feel for you 2, I really do, I cannot understand how you guys can think in such crazy terms, and how facts are just ignored, because they are inconvenient to your Hate Bush lives.

Bush is doing what he feels is neacassary to protect the United States from terrorist attacks, he has NOT broken his oath to the constitution, nor has he done anything that thwarts or has harmed it, in any way shape or form.

You guys live in some whacked out lala land for the paranoid schizos. It's just bizarre to watch you 2 congratulate each other on how stupid you sound....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by street:

quote:

Gentlemen, I kick you in the nuts and send you to the mat hard in every argument we ever have and still you maniacs somehow think you're on a moral and intellectual high-ground. You're as deluded in your assessment of the outcome of our debates as you are in your belief that G.W. has the goods on WMDs.

MAN!!!....Is'nt THAT the TRUTH!!


Poor Street, he actually thinks that little Grasshopper knows what he is talking about.

ROFLMAO!! Well, I guess he has to, since Little Grasshopper is the only one goofy enough to continue speaking his nonsense, besides street.

Hey, the 2 crazies HAVE to stick together, otherwise they might get some actual facts that would destroy thier arguments.

I feel for you 2, I really do, I cannot understand how you guys can think in such crazy terms, and how facts are just ignored, because they are inconvenient to your Hate Bush lives.

Bush is doing what he feels is neacassary to protect the United States from terrorist attacks, he has NOT broken his oath to the constitution, nor has he done anything that thwarts or has harmed it, in any way shape or form.

You guys live in some whacked out lala land for the paranoid schizos. It's just bizarre to watch you 2 congratulate each other on how stupid you sound....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really sad, is that you have to post all that crap(par, considering the source), to say this:

quote:

Bush is doing what he feels is neacassary to protect the United States from terrorist attacks, he has NOT broken his oath to the constitution, nor has he done anything that thwarts or has harmed it, in any way shape or form.

and all I have to say to this: " It's NOT like he doesnt KEEP trying"...LOL

There have been some VERY expensive battles fought, to INSURE, this....or have'nt you noticed? (probably not, since it is your MESSIAH, getting clamped down!!)

wise up!!

[ 08-16-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really sad, is that you have to post all that crap(par, considering the source), to say this:

quote:

Bush is doing what he feels is neacassary to protect the United States from terrorist attacks, he has NOT broken his oath to the constitution, nor has he done anything that thwarts or has harmed it, in any way shape or form.

and all I have to say to this: " It's NOT like he doesnt KEEP trying"...LOL

There have been some VERY expensive battles fought, to INSURE, this....or have'nt you noticed? (probably not, since it is your MESSIAH, getting clamped down!!)

wise up!!

[ 08-16-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Wise up? Me,

I'd say to you that it is time for a reality check, as in you don't seem to live in reality.

Man, talk about lala land. you must live in some antidimension somewhere, just straight up bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Wise up? Me,

I'd say to you that it is time for a reality check, as in you don't seem to live in reality.

Man, talk about lala land. you must live in some antidimension somewhere, just straight up bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

ACLU of CO Sues Federal and State Law Enforcement Agencies Over Illegal SWAT Raid on Family (02/20/2002)

According to the ACLU lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of Dan and Rosa Unis and their two college-aged sons, on August 19, 2000, the family was peacefully enjoying the privacy of their home when ÔÇ£black-masked, black-helmeted men brandishing automatic weapons and wearing all-black uniforms with no insignias suddenly burst into the house unannounced, kicked the family's dog across the floor and ordered the entire family to "get on the ****ing floor."

here is a REALITY CHECK, for you Jag!!

quote:

NEW YORK -- The Supreme Court Term that ended today will long be remembered for its emphatic repudiation of the Bush administrationÔÇÖs claim that it can conduct the war on terrorism as it sees fit with virtually no opportunity for meaningful judicial review, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.

Insisting that a system of checks and balances is essential to safeguarding both liberty and security, the Court ruled that foreign citizens detained at Guantánamo Bay and American citizens detained in military brigs are both entitled to their day in court.

ÔÇ£These are truly historic decisions,ÔÇØ said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLUÔÇÖs national legal director. ÔÇ£The administration has treated the rule of law as an inconvenience in the war against terrorism. In response, the Supreme Court has sent a powerful message that the end does not justify the means, and that it will not sit on the sidelines while the rule of law is ignored.ÔÇØ

The torture scandal at Abu Ghraib was not explicitly mentioned in any of the CourtÔÇÖs opinions. ÔÇ£Even still,ÔÇØ Shapiro said, ÔÇ£it is hard to believe that it did not affect the Court and reinforce its view that unchecked power invites abuse.ÔÇØ

The administrationÔÇÖs opportunistic approach to the rule of law is perhaps best illustrated by its shifting positions on the legal status of our naval base at Guant├ínamo Bay. In classified memos that have now been released, the administration argued that the Torture Act does not apply to Guant├ínamo because it is functionally part of the United States. Before the Supreme Court, however, the administration contended that Guant├ínamo is still part of Cuba and thus the detainees being held there have no right to challenge the legality of their detention in federal court.

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Rasul v. Bush (03-334), holding that ÔÇ£the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the ExecutiveÔÇÖs potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing.ÔÇØ The case was thus sent back to the lower courts to determine whether the detention policies at Guant├ínamo Bay are consistent with the Constitution and AmericaÔÇÖs treaty obligations.

The administrationÔÇÖs efforts to evade judicial review were likewise rejected in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (03-6696). Unlike the foreign nationals detained at Guant├ínamo Bay, Yaser Hamdi is an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He has been held in various American military brigs for more than two years without charges and trial and, until very recently, without any opportunity to consult his attorney. The government contended that it could continue to hold Hamdi in this condition indefinitely so long as it presented a federal court with ÔÇ£some evidenceÔÇØ to justify its decision to designate Hamdi as an ÔÇ£enemy combatant.ÔÇØ In the governmentÔÇÖs view, Hamdi was not entitled to present his side of the story or to question the governmentÔÇÖs case.

The Supreme Court again disagreed. Four justices were prepared to order HamdiÔÇÖs immediate release on the ground that Congress had not authorized it. That view did not command a majority. But eight members of the Court agreed that Hamdi had been deprived of his due process rights because he has never been given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Hamdi opinion also strongly suggests that the Court has learned from its past mistakes and is no longer willing to defer to executive claims of military necessity in every instance, as it did when it upheld the internment of more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. As Justice OÔÇÖConnor wrote for the plurality in Hamdi: ÔÇ£[A] state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the NationÔÇÖs citizens.ÔÇØ

Jose Padilla is the second known American citizen currently detained in a military brig as an ÔÇ£enemy combatant.ÔÇØ He is, without doubt, entitled to at least the same due process protections that have now been granted to Yaser Hamdi. Nevertheless, in Rumsfeld v. Padilla (03-1027), the Court dismissed PadillaÔÇÖs habeas corpus petition on the theory that he had incorrectly filed it in New York rather than South Carolina, where he is presently being held. In all likelihood, Padilla will soon file a new petition and, based on the language in the Hamdi decision, may have a strong claim that he is not subject to designation as an ÔÇ£enemy combatantÔÇØ because he was arrested at OÔÇÖHare Airport rather than captured on a foreign battlefield.

The issue of international human rights was before the Court in a different context in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (03-339), a case in which the ACLU served as co-counsel. Resolving an issue that has become increasingly contentious in recent years, the Court ruled that the Alien Tort Claims Act, which was adopted as part of the first Judiciary Act of 1789, allows aliens to sue for damages in federal court for serious violations of broadly accepted human rights norms. Although the CourtÔÇÖs opinion did not provide a full list of human rights violations covered by the Act, it seems clear from the CourtÔÇÖs language that torture victims, among others, can pursue damage claims against their torturers in United States courts, even if the torture occurred abroad.

In this particular case, the Court held that Alvarez-Machain could not sue under the Alien Tort Claims Act because he had not suffered ÔÇ£prolongedÔÇØ arbitrary detention, despite the fact that he had been kidnapped from his home in Mexico at the direction of American officials who believed that he had conspired to murder a federal drug agent. And, even though he was acquitted of that crime, the Court also ruled in the consolidated case of United States v. Alvarez-Machain (03-485) that he could not sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act because it does not apply to torts committed outside the United States.

On the final day of the Term, the Court revisited the question of Internet censorship in Ashcroft v. ACLU (03-218), and blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act in an important First Amendment ruling. Adopted by Congress in 1998, the Act criminalizes sexually explicit speech on the Internet that is ÔÇ£harmful to minors,ÔÇØ but does so in a manner that effectively deprives adults of access to constitutionally protected material.

Justice KennedyÔÇÖs opinion for the Court noted that ÔÇ£[c]ontent-based restrictions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people.ÔÇØ He then pointed out that the government had so far failed to prove that its interest in protecting children could not be served even more effectively by allowing parents to rely on filtering software rather than threatening Internet speakers with criminal prosecution.

American elections will be shaped for many years to come by two other decisions the Court issued this Term. In McConnell v. FEC (02-1674), a case in which the ACLU served as both plaintiff and co-counsel, the Supreme Court upheld the major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Title I of the Act severely limits so-called ÔÇ£soft moneyÔÇØ contributions to political parties and candidates. Title II of the Act places new restrictions on ÔÇ£issue adsÔÇØ by unions and corporations, including nonprofit corporations like the ACLU.

The far-reaching consequences of that decision were evidenced last week when a complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission seeking an order that bars the distributors of Michael MooreÔÇÖs new documentary, ÔÇ£Fahrenheit 9/11,ÔÇØ from broadcasting any ads for the film that mention President Bush or show his image during a three-month period that starts one month before the Republican convention and extends until Election Day.

In a second decision that received less attention but may turn out to be even more consequential, the Court effectively closed the door on future challenges to partisan gerrymandering in Vieth v. Jubeliler (02-1580), thus perpetuating a system in which incumbents are virtually assured re-election and there are fewer contested congressional seats with each new election cycle.

Church-state issues figured prominently on the CourtÔÇÖs docket this Term, as well, but the results were less dramatic than anticipated. In the most closely watched case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (02-1624), the Court ruled that a non-custodial parent lacked standing to challenge a California school districtÔÇÖs practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance each morning with the phrase ÔÇ£under God.ÔÇØ The underlying issue is unlikely to go away forever, but the battle has at least been postponed.

In Locke v. Davey (02-1315), the Court gave state legislatures breathing room in the ongoing debate over school vouchers by holding that the Free Exercise Clause did not require Washington State to extend a scholarship program to students pursuing theology degrees. The result was perhaps less surprising than the vote, 7-2, and the opinionÔÇÖs author, Chief Justice Rehnquist.

In Hibbs v. Winn (02-1809), the fourth direct ACLU case this year, the Court upheld the power of the federal courts to resolve a dispute about the constitutionality of an Arizona tax credit scheme that, plaintiffs claimed, acted as a government subsidy for religious education. Had the Court ruled otherwise, it would have been possible for states to avoid federal court review of any unconstitutional program that they chose to fund through tax credits rather than a direct government expenditure.

For the second time in two years, the Court also rejected a federalism challenge to a major civil rights law when it held, in Tennessee v. Lane (02-1667), that states could be sued for damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act if they failed to provide reasonable access to judicial proceedings for people with disabilities.

A different sort of access issue was before the Court in Cheney v. United States District Court (03-475), which led to a well-publicized dispute over Justice ScaliaÔÇÖs recusal even before the case was argued. The Court ultimately stopped short of deciding whether Vice President Cheney could be compelled to disclose the identity of private advisors to the government energy task force he chaired. But it did hold that the Vice President could rely on mandamus jurisdiction, a so-called ÔÇ£extraordinary writ,ÔÇØ to appeal a series of discovery orders issued by the district court. The lasting significance of the decision may lie less in the actual ruling that in the majorityÔÇÖs expansive language endorsing the principle of executive branch confidentiality.

Two of the CourtÔÇÖs most important criminal law decisions involved the Sixth Amendment. In Blakely v. Washington (02-1632), the Court struck down a provision of Washington StateÔÇÖs sentencing guidelines and, in the process, called into question the constitutional validity of the federal sentencing guidelines. In Crawford v. Washington (02-9410), the Court reinvigorated the Confrontation Clause by limiting the prosecutionÔÇÖs ability to rely on out-of-court testimony, a ruling that may have significant impact on future terrorism investigations.

The CourtÔÇÖs Fifth Amendment record was mixed. In Missouri v. Siebert (02-1371), the Court expressed considerable displeasure with the increasingly common practice of questioning criminal suspects without a Miranda warning in the hope that they will confess, and then be persuaded to repeat the confession after Miranda warnings are given. In United States v. Patane (02-1183), on the other hand, the Court held that the failure to follow Miranda does not affect the admissibility of physical evidence that is discovered as a result of the suspectÔÇÖs unwarned statements.

Finally, the Fourth Amendment again took a beating in a series of lopsided decisions. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (03-5554), the Court upheld a Nevada law that permits the police to arrest someone who refuses to identify himself during a valid street stop. And, in a trilogy of cases, the Court upheld the right of police to search a car without a warrant after they have arrested a ÔÇ£recent occupantÔÇØ of the car, Thornton v. United States (03-5165), the right of the police to search all of the occupants of a car when they find drugs concealed under the rear armrest and no one claims ownership, Maryland v. Pringle (02-809), and the right of the police to set up a roadblock to investigate a week-old hit-and-run accident, Illinois v. Lidster (02-1060).

In the end, however, this Term will be known for the CourtÔÇÖs terrorism decisions. ÔÇ£The state of civil liberties is always perilous in periods of national crisis,ÔÇØ Shapiro said. ÔÇ£The Court deserves great credit for recognizing that the rule of law cannot be enforced in the absence of meaningful judicial review.ÔÇØ

The ACLUÔÇÖs full summary of the termsÔÇÖ decisions is online at


And JUST BECAUSE, it takes an "ORGANIZATION" like the ACLU, does NOT discredit, what and WHO they are FIGHTING!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

ACLU of CO Sues Federal and State Law Enforcement Agencies Over Illegal SWAT Raid on Family (02/20/2002)

According to the ACLU lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of Dan and Rosa Unis and their two college-aged sons, on August 19, 2000, the family was peacefully enjoying the privacy of their home when ÔÇ£black-masked, black-helmeted men brandishing automatic weapons and wearing all-black uniforms with no insignias suddenly burst into the house unannounced, kicked the family's dog across the floor and ordered the entire family to "get on the ****ing floor."

here is a REALITY CHECK, for you Jag!!

quote:

NEW YORK -- The Supreme Court Term that ended today will long be remembered for its emphatic repudiation of the Bush administrationÔÇÖs claim that it can conduct the war on terrorism as it sees fit with virtually no opportunity for meaningful judicial review, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.

Insisting that a system of checks and balances is essential to safeguarding both liberty and security, the Court ruled that foreign citizens detained at Guantánamo Bay and American citizens detained in military brigs are both entitled to their day in court.

ÔÇ£These are truly historic decisions,ÔÇØ said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLUÔÇÖs national legal director. ÔÇ£The administration has treated the rule of law as an inconvenience in the war against terrorism. In response, the Supreme Court has sent a powerful message that the end does not justify the means, and that it will not sit on the sidelines while the rule of law is ignored.ÔÇØ

The torture scandal at Abu Ghraib was not explicitly mentioned in any of the CourtÔÇÖs opinions. ÔÇ£Even still,ÔÇØ Shapiro said, ÔÇ£it is hard to believe that it did not affect the Court and reinforce its view that unchecked power invites abuse.ÔÇØ

The administrationÔÇÖs opportunistic approach to the rule of law is perhaps best illustrated by its shifting positions on the legal status of our naval base at Guant├ínamo Bay. In classified memos that have now been released, the administration argued that the Torture Act does not apply to Guant├ínamo because it is functionally part of the United States. Before the Supreme Court, however, the administration contended that Guant├ínamo is still part of Cuba and thus the detainees being held there have no right to challenge the legality of their detention in federal court.

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Rasul v. Bush (03-334), holding that ÔÇ£the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the ExecutiveÔÇÖs potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing.ÔÇØ The case was thus sent back to the lower courts to determine whether the detention policies at Guant├ínamo Bay are consistent with the Constitution and AmericaÔÇÖs treaty obligations.

The administrationÔÇÖs efforts to evade judicial review were likewise rejected in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (03-6696). Unlike the foreign nationals detained at Guant├ínamo Bay, Yaser Hamdi is an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He has been held in various American military brigs for more than two years without charges and trial and, until very recently, without any opportunity to consult his attorney. The government contended that it could continue to hold Hamdi in this condition indefinitely so long as it presented a federal court with ÔÇ£some evidenceÔÇØ to justify its decision to designate Hamdi as an ÔÇ£enemy combatant.ÔÇØ In the governmentÔÇÖs view, Hamdi was not entitled to present his side of the story or to question the governmentÔÇÖs case.

The Supreme Court again disagreed. Four justices were prepared to order HamdiÔÇÖs immediate release on the ground that Congress had not authorized it. That view did not command a majority. But eight members of the Court agreed that Hamdi had been deprived of his due process rights because he has never been given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Hamdi opinion also strongly suggests that the Court has learned from its past mistakes and is no longer willing to defer to executive claims of military necessity in every instance, as it did when it upheld the internment of more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. As Justice OÔÇÖConnor wrote for the plurality in Hamdi: ÔÇ£[A] state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the NationÔÇÖs citizens.ÔÇØ

Jose Padilla is the second known American citizen currently detained in a military brig as an ÔÇ£enemy combatant.ÔÇØ He is, without doubt, entitled to at least the same due process protections that have now been granted to Yaser Hamdi. Nevertheless, in Rumsfeld v. Padilla (03-1027), the Court dismissed PadillaÔÇÖs habeas corpus petition on the theory that he had incorrectly filed it in New York rather than South Carolina, where he is presently being held. In all likelihood, Padilla will soon file a new petition and, based on the language in the Hamdi decision, may have a strong claim that he is not subject to designation as an ÔÇ£enemy combatantÔÇØ because he was arrested at OÔÇÖHare Airport rather than captured on a foreign battlefield.

The issue of international human rights was before the Court in a different context in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (03-339), a case in which the ACLU served as co-counsel. Resolving an issue that has become increasingly contentious in recent years, the Court ruled that the Alien Tort Claims Act, which was adopted as part of the first Judiciary Act of 1789, allows aliens to sue for damages in federal court for serious violations of broadly accepted human rights norms. Although the CourtÔÇÖs opinion did not provide a full list of human rights violations covered by the Act, it seems clear from the CourtÔÇÖs language that torture victims, among others, can pursue damage claims against their torturers in United States courts, even if the torture occurred abroad.

In this particular case, the Court held that Alvarez-Machain could not sue under the Alien Tort Claims Act because he had not suffered ÔÇ£prolongedÔÇØ arbitrary detention, despite the fact that he had been kidnapped from his home in Mexico at the direction of American officials who believed that he had conspired to murder a federal drug agent. And, even though he was acquitted of that crime, the Court also ruled in the consolidated case of United States v. Alvarez-Machain (03-485) that he could not sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act because it does not apply to torts committed outside the United States.

On the final day of the Term, the Court revisited the question of Internet censorship in Ashcroft v. ACLU (03-218), and blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act in an important First Amendment ruling. Adopted by Congress in 1998, the Act criminalizes sexually explicit speech on the Internet that is ÔÇ£harmful to minors,ÔÇØ but does so in a manner that effectively deprives adults of access to constitutionally protected material.

Justice KennedyÔÇÖs opinion for the Court noted that ÔÇ£[c]ontent-based restrictions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people.ÔÇØ He then pointed out that the government had so far failed to prove that its interest in protecting children could not be served even more effectively by allowing parents to rely on filtering software rather than threatening Internet speakers with criminal prosecution.

American elections will be shaped for many years to come by two other decisions the Court issued this Term. In McConnell v. FEC (02-1674), a case in which the ACLU served as both plaintiff and co-counsel, the Supreme Court upheld the major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Title I of the Act severely limits so-called ÔÇ£soft moneyÔÇØ contributions to political parties and candidates. Title II of the Act places new restrictions on ÔÇ£issue adsÔÇØ by unions and corporations, including nonprofit corporations like the ACLU.

The far-reaching consequences of that decision were evidenced last week when a complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission seeking an order that bars the distributors of Michael MooreÔÇÖs new documentary, ÔÇ£Fahrenheit 9/11,ÔÇØ from broadcasting any ads for the film that mention President Bush or show his image during a three-month period that starts one month before the Republican convention and extends until Election Day.

In a second decision that received less attention but may turn out to be even more consequential, the Court effectively closed the door on future challenges to partisan gerrymandering in Vieth v. Jubeliler (02-1580), thus perpetuating a system in which incumbents are virtually assured re-election and there are fewer contested congressional seats with each new election cycle.

Church-state issues figured prominently on the CourtÔÇÖs docket this Term, as well, but the results were less dramatic than anticipated. In the most closely watched case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (02-1624), the Court ruled that a non-custodial parent lacked standing to challenge a California school districtÔÇÖs practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance each morning with the phrase ÔÇ£under God.ÔÇØ The underlying issue is unlikely to go away forever, but the battle has at least been postponed.

In Locke v. Davey (02-1315), the Court gave state legislatures breathing room in the ongoing debate over school vouchers by holding that the Free Exercise Clause did not require Washington State to extend a scholarship program to students pursuing theology degrees. The result was perhaps less surprising than the vote, 7-2, and the opinionÔÇÖs author, Chief Justice Rehnquist.

In Hibbs v. Winn (02-1809), the fourth direct ACLU case this year, the Court upheld the power of the federal courts to resolve a dispute about the constitutionality of an Arizona tax credit scheme that, plaintiffs claimed, acted as a government subsidy for religious education. Had the Court ruled otherwise, it would have been possible for states to avoid federal court review of any unconstitutional program that they chose to fund through tax credits rather than a direct government expenditure.

For the second time in two years, the Court also rejected a federalism challenge to a major civil rights law when it held, in Tennessee v. Lane (02-1667), that states could be sued for damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act if they failed to provide reasonable access to judicial proceedings for people with disabilities.

A different sort of access issue was before the Court in Cheney v. United States District Court (03-475), which led to a well-publicized dispute over Justice ScaliaÔÇÖs recusal even before the case was argued. The Court ultimately stopped short of deciding whether Vice President Cheney could be compelled to disclose the identity of private advisors to the government energy task force he chaired. But it did hold that the Vice President could rely on mandamus jurisdiction, a so-called ÔÇ£extraordinary writ,ÔÇØ to appeal a series of discovery orders issued by the district court. The lasting significance of the decision may lie less in the actual ruling that in the majorityÔÇÖs expansive language endorsing the principle of executive branch confidentiality.

Two of the CourtÔÇÖs most important criminal law decisions involved the Sixth Amendment. In Blakely v. Washington (02-1632), the Court struck down a provision of Washington StateÔÇÖs sentencing guidelines and, in the process, called into question the constitutional validity of the federal sentencing guidelines. In Crawford v. Washington (02-9410), the Court reinvigorated the Confrontation Clause by limiting the prosecutionÔÇÖs ability to rely on out-of-court testimony, a ruling that may have significant impact on future terrorism investigations.

The CourtÔÇÖs Fifth Amendment record was mixed. In Missouri v. Siebert (02-1371), the Court expressed considerable displeasure with the increasingly common practice of questioning criminal suspects without a Miranda warning in the hope that they will confess, and then be persuaded to repeat the confession after Miranda warnings are given. In United States v. Patane (02-1183), on the other hand, the Court held that the failure to follow Miranda does not affect the admissibility of physical evidence that is discovered as a result of the suspectÔÇÖs unwarned statements.

Finally, the Fourth Amendment again took a beating in a series of lopsided decisions. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (03-5554), the Court upheld a Nevada law that permits the police to arrest someone who refuses to identify himself during a valid street stop. And, in a trilogy of cases, the Court upheld the right of police to search a car without a warrant after they have arrested a ÔÇ£recent occupantÔÇØ of the car, Thornton v. United States (03-5165), the right of the police to search all of the occupants of a car when they find drugs concealed under the rear armrest and no one claims ownership, Maryland v. Pringle (02-809), and the right of the police to set up a roadblock to investigate a week-old hit-and-run accident, Illinois v. Lidster (02-1060).

In the end, however, this Term will be known for the CourtÔÇÖs terrorism decisions. ÔÇ£The state of civil liberties is always perilous in periods of national crisis,ÔÇØ Shapiro said. ÔÇ£The Court deserves great credit for recognizing that the rule of law cannot be enforced in the absence of meaningful judicial review.ÔÇØ

The ACLUÔÇÖs full summary of the termsÔÇÖ decisions is online at


And JUST BECAUSE, it takes an "ORGANIZATION" like the ACLU, does NOT discredit, what and WHO they are FIGHTING!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on you two, for once I must ask that you take this to PM's

Why?

Causes it's to damn funny to watch you two, nearly sufficated

Problem Jaguar

If the fact's don't come from CNN, CBS, PBC, ABC, NBC, or MSNBC then they won't believe you. Liberals beleave that the agencys just listed are saints and that they never lie (HAH!)

That being said, they'll refuse to check what is said or listened against the congresstional records

However, I am pleased to say that one of my liberal friend's switched side's after he found out just how communist CNN really is... and you know how he found that out? By checking something that I've been saying for the past few weeks now.

Check. The. Congresstional. Records. They DO NOT lie, everything recorded in there is what happened over the years, they cannot be changed. That being said what is listed is factual

As for WMD... It's to much to laugh at, little kid still thinks WMD's do not exist but that's because he refuse's to check the source of who actually said that.. lol.. if he was to ever check it he'd be shocked

Edit: ACLU? You're kidding me... ACLU hasn't done jack shit for this country nor have they helped us in any way, they continue to get in the way of people's live's and refuse to leave other's a lone

Sorry Street, but you fail to realize the amount of liberal and communist organizations around here.. ACLU is just one org that I wish was disbanded and it's members tossed in prison for tresson

American Civil Libertys Union... more like the Anarchy Communist Liberal's Union.. cause they leave people alone and always get into there bussiness.. and when the court DOES do something right (like something that benefits the US) the ACLU steps in and try's to provent it from passing... pathetic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on you two, for once I must ask that you take this to PM's

Why?

Causes it's to damn funny to watch you two, nearly sufficated

Problem Jaguar

If the fact's don't come from CNN, CBS, PBC, ABC, NBC, or MSNBC then they won't believe you. Liberals beleave that the agencys just listed are saints and that they never lie (HAH!)

That being said, they'll refuse to check what is said or listened against the congresstional records

However, I am pleased to say that one of my liberal friend's switched side's after he found out just how communist CNN really is... and you know how he found that out? By checking something that I've been saying for the past few weeks now.

Check. The. Congresstional. Records. They DO NOT lie, everything recorded in there is what happened over the years, they cannot be changed. That being said what is listed is factual

As for WMD... It's to much to laugh at, little kid still thinks WMD's do not exist but that's because he refuse's to check the source of who actually said that.. lol.. if he was to ever check it he'd be shocked

Edit: ACLU? You're kidding me... ACLU hasn't done jack shit for this country nor have they helped us in any way, they continue to get in the way of people's live's and refuse to leave other's a lone

Sorry Street, but you fail to realize the amount of liberal and communist organizations around here.. ACLU is just one org that I wish was disbanded and it's members tossed in prison for tresson

American Civil Libertys Union... more like the Anarchy Communist Liberal's Union.. cause they leave people alone and always get into there bussiness.. and when the court DOES do something right (like something that benefits the US) the ACLU steps in and try's to provent it from passing... pathetic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kalshion, your entitled to your opinion, but you, "AGAIN" take my post as some kind of biblical format, for me.

I am sorry your so confused. It was merely an EXAMPLE, of HOW MANY COURT ACTIONS are in play, DUE to BUSH ideology. ALL of which, are being FOUGHT, in order to preserve YOUR constitutional RIGHTS.

OUR whole conversation, could be more plesant, If your views were'nt so warped, that you feel EVERYONE, but BUSH and FOX news were COMMUNIST.

There are MANY books on the market, which describe the various types of GOVERNMENT rule known. And you sure could USE a refresher course, in your attempt to identify them correctly.

There are HUGE differences, in SOCIALISM(ACLU's base ideology) and COMMUNISM(RULE BY COHERSIVE FORCE IDEOLOGY) and TOTALITARIANISM(ONE GOVERNMENT PARTY RULE- IDEOLOGY)

BUSH :expressing, and ACTIVELY demonstrating, a combination, of the latter TWO. ..........................DUH!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×