street228

hey tak, how DARE you post ANYTHING, but FOX. Didnt you hear???...EVERYONE is a commie, but FOX....oh yeah, and that BORN AGAIN ...BAKER...err..I mean BUSH.

quote:Maybe I should have been more precise. I'am afraid that your are right. When I was referring to the cost, specially the time, I should have specified that this could require almost 30 years, or in other words, would require a new generation... I doubt that there will be a sucession of US administrations who will be ready to cope with these countries during such a long time. No, you were quite clear, and understood. I agree with you in most ALL your assessments, but must contend this one additional perspective: I understand, that the division, in regard to U.S.'s initial involvement, means little, in that, the United States is NOW actively involved. After all, WE have been INVOLVED, for over 20 years in afghanistan...already. We have been in Germany, and Korea, for over 50 years. Our pull-out from Vietnam, was the ONLY withdraw, our Nation has EVER, demonstrated, once it's official involvement, was established. I do NOT think, change in Administration, will Affect, our ESTABLISHED position, in either country, nor to that toward terrorism. And we ARE ,in fact, STUCK, with this problem, for the long haul. I DO think, change in Administration, will allow our country to be more intelligent,as to INVADING another country, WITHOUT proper consideration, and more intelligent consultation within our Government, as a whole. We, as a country, have incredable staying power, when it comes to being INVOLVED, in conflict. Especially, when it does NOT affect the MAJORITY of OUR population. I Agree with your conclusion, as to the pending failure within BOTH countries. I just do NOT feel, the reasoning: "LACK of political will", is an inevitability DUE to the time frame, or expense of the operatiion. I feel it is due, more to the SEED which is embedded within the MUSLIM CULTURE, and its teachings, being SET against the SEED which is embedded, in the FANATIC christian culture and it's teachings. These TWO cultural ideals, and THEIR mixture, within the POLITICAL ideologies of the world.....ALMOST guarantees escalation of RADICAL CONFLICT, and RADICAL SOLUTIONS...by BOTH sides. THIS is why, you see "NON-TERRORIST" fighting Americans and the American backed IRAQI forces within Iraq today. We are STILL the invaders, and the INFEDEL. it is too late, to affectively change that ideal, within the muslim culture...while simultaniously holding the population in check, with military force, and CHRISTIAN/communistic(control through force) ideologic rule. THUS: the FAILURE, will indeed be CATASTROPHIC. I view BUSH, as a complete IMBICILE, in regard to this WHOLE matter. If he chokes on another pretzil, I hope it gets him!! quote: Bush taking out a totalitarian regime Iraq and Afghanistan, is not pushing a totalitarianistic agenda, otherwise he would have taken them over, and made them little duchies of the United states. LOL sorry Jag, Even though you think BUSH is some sort of GOD; I hate to bust your bubble, but he is NOT capable of doing that...EVEN with the U.S.Military capabilities. Is BUSH pushing totalitarianism? Your his most AVID follower, and YOU promote, the elimination of the LIBERAL, or DEMOCRATIC party, as unecessary, and a hinderance to BUSH totalitarianistic proliferation!!! YOU believe, and stand on the COMMUNIST(rule by force) ideology. How can you say you do'nt, when you PROMOTE PEEMPTIVE ATTACK, based on foundless speculation..at best? I call unilateral control, and use of LIES to manipulate congress...to ACT unilaterally, in INVADING any country....DOING EXACTLY THAT. Promotion of COMMUNISTIC/TOTALITARIAN rule. ESPECIALLY, when the SAME "POWER CRAZED" fanatic(BUSH), attacks MY constitution, with logic leaking from the same decomposing corpse, as the logic used on the international level. [ 08-17-2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: street ]

quote:Maybe I should have been more precise. I'am afraid that your are right. When I was referring to the cost, specially the time, I should have specified that this could require almost 30 years, or in other words, would require a new generation... I doubt that there will be a sucession of US administrations who will be ready to cope with these countries during such a long time. No, you were quite clear, and understood. I agree with you in most ALL your assessments, but must contend this one additional perspective: I understand, that the division, in regard to U.S.'s initial involvement, means little, in that, the United States is NOW actively involved. After all, WE have been INVOLVED, for over 20 years in afghanistan...already. We have been in Germany, and Korea, for over 50 years. Our pull-out from Vietnam, was the ONLY withdraw, our Nation has EVER, demonstrated, once it's official involvement, was established. I do NOT think, change in Administration, will Affect, our ESTABLISHED position, in either country, nor to that toward terrorism. And we ARE ,in fact, STUCK, with this problem, for the long haul. I DO think, change in Administration, will allow our country to be more intelligent,as to INVADING another country, WITHOUT proper consideration, and more intelligent consultation within our Government, as a whole. We, as a country, have incredable staying power, when it comes to being INVOLVED, in conflict. Especially, when it does NOT affect the MAJORITY of OUR population. I Agree with your conclusion, as to the pending failure within BOTH countries. I just do NOT feel, the reasoning: "LACK of political will", is an inevitability DUE to the time frame, or expense of the operatiion. I feel it is due, more to the SEED which is embedded within the MUSLIM CULTURE, and its teachings, being SET against the SEED which is embedded, in the FANATIC christian culture and it's teachings. These TWO cultural ideals, and THEIR mixture, within the POLITICAL ideologies of the world.....ALMOST guarantees escalation of RADICAL CONFLICT, and RADICAL SOLUTIONS...by BOTH sides. THIS is why, you see "NON-TERRORIST" fighting Americans and the American backed IRAQI forces within Iraq today. We are STILL the invaders, and the INFEDEL. it is too late, to affectively change that ideal, within the muslim culture...while simultaniously holding the population in check, with military force, and CHRISTIAN/communistic(control through force) ideologic rule. THUS: the FAILURE, will indeed be CATASTROPHIC. I view BUSH, as a complete IMBICILE, in regard to this WHOLE matter. If he chokes on another pretzil, I hope it gets him!! quote: Bush taking out a totalitarian regime Iraq and Afghanistan, is not pushing a totalitarianistic agenda, otherwise he would have taken them over, and made them little duchies of the United states. LOL sorry Jag, Even though you think BUSH is some sort of GOD; I hate to bust your bubble, but he is NOT capable of doing that...EVEN with the U.S.Military capabilities. Is BUSH pushing totalitarianism? Your his most AVID follower, and YOU promote, the elimination of the LIBERAL, or DEMOCRATIC party, as unecessary, and a hinderance to BUSH totalitarianistic proliferation!!! YOU believe, and stand on the COMMUNIST(rule by force) ideology. How can you say you do'nt, when you PROMOTE PEEMPTIVE ATTACK, based on foundless speculation..at best? I call unilateral control, and use of LIES to manipulate congress...to ACT unilaterally, in INVADING any country....DOING EXACTLY THAT. Promotion of COMMUNISTIC/TOTALITARIAN rule. ESPECIALLY, when the SAME "POWER CRAZED" fanatic(BUSH), attacks MY constitution, with logic leaking from the same decomposing corpse, as the logic used on the international level. [ 08-17-2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: street ]

quote: Personally, I believe that Bush has opened Pandora's box. As the agenda of democracies come and go according to who holds the power, I doubt that there will be sufficient political will & coherence in the future to pursue the stabilization of Irak & Afghanistan no matter what will be the cost and as long as it takes. I agree, with you on several things, but the one which caught my attention, is that of Pandora'a Box, and that stabilization of Iraq, and Afghanistan, will NEVER be achieved. I do NOT see it as a matter of "LACK OF WILL", though. I see it as "IMPOSSIBLE". In My opinion, it could ONLY have been achieved, IF, the AREA CULTURE,had been seized, IN ADVANCE, of MILITARY conquest. As it stands, EVEN those, apparantly happy under WESTERNISM, ARE (in fact) against it. They have no choice. Their CULTURE's FOUNDATION, will breed the defiance, REGARDLESS of our DESIRE, to RULE their way of thought!! or our MILITARY capability of holding them in subjugation. THIS is what will inevitably, KEEP, both AFGHANISTAN, and IRAQ, in turmoil. Military MIGHT, can NOT superimpose RATIONAL, upon such a CULTURE, nor can it KEEP such a culture, in check. Civil WAR, is almost guaranteed to ensue, and ANY unification,established, would make ALL(Outsiders) infedels, an ABSOLUTE ENEMY. [ 08-17-2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: street ]

quote: Personally, I believe that Bush has opened Pandora's box. As the agenda of democracies come and go according to who holds the power, I doubt that there will be sufficient political will & coherence in the future to pursue the stabilization of Irak & Afghanistan no matter what will be the cost and as long as it takes. I agree, with you on several things, but the one which caught my attention, is that of Pandora'a Box, and that stabilization of Iraq, and Afghanistan, will NEVER be achieved. I do NOT see it as a matter of "LACK OF WILL", though. I see it as "IMPOSSIBLE". In My opinion, it could ONLY have been achieved, IF, the AREA CULTURE,had been seized, IN ADVANCE, of MILITARY conquest. As it stands, EVEN those, apparantly happy under WESTERNISM, ARE (in fact) against it. They have no choice. Their CULTURE's FOUNDATION, will breed the defiance, REGARDLESS of our DESIRE, to RULE their way of thought!! or our MILITARY capability of holding them in subjugation. THIS is what will inevitably, KEEP, both AFGHANISTAN, and IRAQ, in turmoil. Military MIGHT, can NOT superimpose RATIONAL, upon such a CULTURE, nor can it KEEP such a culture, in check. Civil WAR, is almost guaranteed to ensue, and ANY unification,established, would make ALL(Outsiders) infedels, an ABSOLUTE ENEMY. [ 08-17-2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: street ]

quote:I see the ACLU fighting this administration in the courtrooms and losing a lot of them, the only ones you hear about are the ones they win, and their wins are about as helpful to their cause as pissing on a forest fire. hey, THANKS jag!!..I never really thought about it MUCH, but after reading your response...I did some checking!. The ACLU has won NUMEROUS cases, over the last 20 years. AND do you know WHAT? MOST of them, I was GLAD they won. I certainly see some ADVANTAGES, in maintaining my freedom, within their actions. quote:The ACLU, if all of your info is coming from the ACLU website, it's no wonder you're so confused. I rest my case..... there you go..making up lies again. YOU HAVE NO CASE, but are fabricating more unfounded conclusions. My information, just like yours, and everyone else in the world, comes from the same places. I just have NO PROBLEM, looking at BOTH sides of the agenda, and standing up, for the most logical choice of the moment. So, EVEN though, I am a REPUBLICAN...and have NOT actively helped the LIBERAL cause, in the past(EXCEPT the donations, I sent to KERRY)......AND since you HATE their work so much, that you brought their(ACLU's) SUCCESS's to my attention. AND since, the ACLU is ACTIVELY fighting the BUSH GOVERNMENT's INVASIVENESS, AND their PATRIOT Act... I just sent them "A DONATION" "I will be MORE than happy, to make ANOTHER one(of EQUAL AMOUNT), IN YOUR NAME! just let me know. Thanks Again Jag!! and if you need any FINANCIAL help promoting your messiah(BUSH)....just let me know......then..... I can tell YOU the same thing, I have told all the OTHERS, from the RIGHT, who have asked me for donations, this year: "Eat Shit and DIE"...lol quote: THis has turned into a romper room, and it has started because the 2 of you have turned this whole thread into some little attack dog, where you attack the intelligence, the IQ, the spelling, and of course the sources of that information. The ONLY thing which has turned this discussion into such(ROMPER ROOM), is YOU and YOUR attacks Jaguar, YOU are NOT the innocent party here! And just as with your perception of such, Your perceptions of the greater "WHOLE" of the issue are just as perverted!!! ALL people of GUILT, hide their guilt through the blame game....DONT believe me....?...look at BUSH!!! quote:Trust me Takvah, when you decide to listen to the one's posting the facts and stop attacking people then even I will listen to you... @ Kalshion I think You need to go back and look at this whole thing with a little honesty...Takvah, is doing NOTHING,but responding in like mannor, to that which was dealt out....FIRST. [ 08-17-2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: street ]

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!!!

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!!!

quote:heh, thats rather an expensive way to despose of an OC, but I can see a large degree of satisfaction in that though EXACTLY!!!

http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u...0104;p=3#000105 your the one, in fantasy land. OR, Are you just, TOO stupid, to see that OUR country is tied up in the courts , due to PEOPLE FIGHTING this administration...and "WITH GOOD REASON", I might add!! [ 08-16-2004, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: street ]

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 Guant├ínamo 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 http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=16028&c=261 And JUST BECAUSE, it takes an "ORGANIZATION" like the ACLU, does NOT discredit, what and WHO they are FIGHTING!!!

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 Guant├ínamo 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 http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=16028&c=261 And JUST BECAUSE, it takes an "ORGANIZATION" like the ACLU, does NOT discredit, what and WHO they are FIGHTING!!!

Welcome BombFox. ------------------------------------------------- Wolfheart, I have NEVER seen figures like those either....Drop that oc on a planet, and OTS the damn thing...

wake me, if YOU have anything INTELLIGENT to say!!

Bush is a LIER, and his FATHER , is the FATHER of LIERS. Bush...born again??... He is NOTHING, and your even LESS. I suppose, KILLing is the WILL of GOD too?.. does the word "FANATIC" come to mind? quote:.... you are an intellectual, or like to claim you are. oh and thanks!!.., though I'd bet you $100.00, you cant cut and paste, where I claimed to be an intellectual" ....just more of your twisted SH*T!! [ 08-16-2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: street ]

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 ]

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 ]

yeah jag,....right! "He is FANATICALLY RELIGEOUS; therefore, he has morals?" what drugs you on??

quote: THen this Radical totalitarian ideaology, and moralless virtues? Excuse me, I thought that he was some sort of religious fanatic? If he is religious fanatic, he is obviously NOT moralless, you guys had better figure out your lines and get them straight, because you are confused. What MORALITY has Rev MOON displayed?...LOL again, your logic, that RELIGEOUS people are full of some esoteric MORALITY, is as flawed as the rest of your logic..no wonder your so confused! quote: What exactly does radical totalitarian ideology mean? big words for such a little mind, do you REALLY have a clue of what that means? I suppose, your going to say you NEVER read all the post which described EXAMPLES of the IDEOLOGY I am referring to. Just go back and read, what you promote, and you will see what I am referring to. DUH!!!(take another one of your SMART pills, Jag )

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!!

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!!

somehow, their little brains, cannot comprehend the FACT, that "PRO-BUSH", or "PRO-WAR", does not DICTATE party lines. (wake up people) This happens, when the CANADATE, does NOT support the party ideology and promotes a RADICAL totalitarian ideology.(not to mention all the moraless virtues, he has demonstrated) Their NOT worth it Takvah, their credibility has been declining, as fast as Bush's. Like dead men walking, that are too stupid to lay down. SAD really.

In my opinion, the guy, really DOESNT get it. ALL the things he knocks, about the game, are the things, which make this game BLOW all the other games(arcade styled shitware) out of the water. His "so called" observation are so inaccurate, there is no way, he could have actually PLAYED UC; but only loaded it up and spent 20 minutes, trying to figure out how to land. The actual REVIEW, appeared to be in the form of a PERSONAL attack to Derek Smart, rather than the actual game itself. I say, we tar and feather him, when he gets off work!!.......(just kidding) Seriously though....Intelligence, is one thing, ARCADE syled games, DO NOT require. And this reviewer, is definately caught inside the ARCADE mind set. I have been playing CONTINUOUS now, for 39 days...and ENJOY every minute I am at the bridge....I'd bet, this guy has NEVER imagined, ANY game could get that kind of attention...and NOT get old!!!