Conservatives hate your constitution

[thecannacove]

Just want to add my .02 - I don't have near enough time to read through this entire thread, but I would like to say that I am personally a conservative, a combat veteran, and a true believer and support of our constitution. The generalization made in the thread title is simply a fallacy. Hear me out...

You can't say just because a group with common views that they all think/like/hate the same things. If you identify as a liberal, democrat, republican, conservative, libertarian, tea party member, etc., you would be lying if you said you agreed with EVERYTHING your party does. Moreover, there are fundamentally different opinions by party leaders (within the same party). This is why you will see some votes yes, and some no from the same party in the senate or house. Nobody can ever agree with everything.

That's really all I wanted to say. I am happy that there are open discussions and that we are all free to choose or even make our own political party - it's what makes the United States of America such an amazing country. Let's try to live together, than divide a nation. Much love!

 

[Dr Kynes]

Just want to add my .02 - I don't have near enough time to read through this entire thread, but I would like to say that I am personally a conservative, a combat veteran, and a true believer and support of our constitution. The generalization made in the thread title is simply a fallacy. Hear me out...

You can't say just because a group with common views that they all think/like/hate the same things. If you identify as a liberal, democrat, republican, conservative, libertarian, tea party member, etc., you would be lying if you said you agreed with EVERYTHING your party does. Moreover, there are fundamentally different opinions by party leaders (within the same party). This is why you will see some votes yes, and some no from the same party in the senate or house. Nobody can ever agree with everything.

That's really all I wanted to say. I am happy that there are open discussions and that we are all free to choose or even make our own political party - it's what makes the United States of America such an amazing country. Let's try to live together, than divide a nation. Much love!

according to El Presidente, you're a terrorist.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all

thanks for your service bro.

the lefties may hate on you, but most of us think you're groovy.

 

[thecannacove]

The US consulate required 325.000 for my wife and I. The average amount is 150.000 per person per visa. That is not a loan or credit. That is verifiable cash and it is far from what we have at our disposal. I could raise 1.000.000 in hours if I needed to. Hate all you want, that is what gringos do best, hate other people. You people are beneath us and your citizens that work for us will also be beneath us. Your citizenship does not make you rich although most of you act as though you are. I would bet 99% of you earn less than 50.000 US a year. That is 6 months rent on my restaurant.

Bow down you white slaves.

I am investing far more money than you will ever possess for the right to come there. You will never be on my level gringo.

El Tibby,

First off, I respect everyone's right to free speech, yes even yours. However, I respect it only until it exceeds the bounds of you having the right to say the words you speak. You sir, have absolutely no right. Not because you are a POS looking to come into this country, but because you don't respect the very foundation of this country's founding documents that give you said rights. Can you please enlighten us as to why you would ever wish to immigrate to a country that you apparently loathe? I would really love to know.

Lastly, I find your avatar to be the antithesis of your "prophecies". You hate the "white man", yet your avatar is the GREAT WHITE! By the way, shark in Spanish is Tiburón,not Tiberon you damn idiot. Well done sir, well done.

 

[thecannacove]

according to El Presidente, you're a terrorist.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all

thanks for your service bro.

the lefties may hate on you, but most of us think you're groovy.

Thanks Doc! You see, the link provided shows my point in case. Napolitano caught shit from her own party, and much embarrassment from our nation as a whole. Shortsightedness and ignorance don't upset me much anymore. Bashing others, and pure hatred on the other hand, well that can get to me at times. That's when I go

 

[abandonconflict]

I remember before I was disillusioned and I believed in the American dream. That was until I learned why the shit I heard didn't seem to match what I had seen. I learned about the history of the bloodthirsty war cult called America. It has inequality built right into the constitution. It is guilty of the greatest genocide in history. It has a war machine bigger than any in history and occupies most of the globe. It employs indoctrinated young men who believe they are somehow protecting freedom, when in fact they are serving an empire.

 

[thecannacove]

Constitutional rights are afforded to US citizens.

Incarcerated felons, enemy combatants loose that right, wise up.

Beenthere, this is exactly what so many people fail to see (Jon Stewart included). Glad you pointed this out - apparently many people missed it... Everyone, pay close attention to these two words "Enemy Combatant". To this end, the subject matter that was poorly introduced (the video) on post one, enemy combatant and unlawful combatant are synonymous pursuant to the Obama administrations abandonment of the term "enemy combatant":
"As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law." 3-13-2009 United States Attorney General Eric Holder

If you need to read that again, please do... note this is the Obama Administration --- "As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees" - so please, who exactly is trying to reform the constitution and the law of the land? "Developing a new policy" certainly sounds like changing our tribunal laws governed under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. I'm not pointing fingers at parties, but I would like to say that President Obama is not conservative. If you feel the need to attack, please pick the appropriate party. Let me go on the record here saying that I understand the reason and need for certain change. BUT, not a single party is undermining our constitution in the case provided.

You are not a felon until you have followed the course of due process and have been convicted. That is the way it reads to me. You see it differently?

What due process do unlawful combatants have? Well, I'm glad you asked:
"Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful."
Yes, that is right, they get a military tribunal, not a hearing and jury of their "peers" (as if such people could even call U.S. citizens peers anyway). So El Tibby... learn our constitution, learn about the Geneva Convention, learn about 'MERICA! before you start poppin' off.

On a final note, when did people start taking the Daily Show as news? It's no different than the onion.

 

[UncleBuck]

according to El Presidente, you're a terrorist.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all

president napolitano?

 

[Dr Kynes]

president napolitano?

napolitano serves at the pleasure of the president, if he did not approve of her remarks or her conclusions he would have SACKED HER.

who gives the orders in the whitehouse these days? the O-Man or his underlings?

 

[Dr Kynes]

El Tibby,

First off, I respect everyone's right to free speech, yes even yours. However, I respect it only until it exceeds the bounds of you having the right to say the words you speak. You sir, have absolutely no right. Not because you are a POS looking to come into this country, but because you don't respect the very foundation of this country's founding documents that give you said rights. Can you please enlighten us as to why you would ever wish to immigrate to a country that you apparently loathe? I would really love to know.

Lastly, I find your avatar to be the antithesis of your "prophecies". You hate the "white man", yet your avatar is the GREAT WHITE! By the way, shark in Spanish is Tiburón,not Tiberon you damn idiot. Well done sir, well done.

you should learn quite rapidly that El Papanatas is hilariously foolish.

everything he says is either a total fabrication of an exaggeration of Brobdingnagian proportions.

i suspect he has Munchhausen Syndrome, Napoleon Syndrome and a viscous case of the Crotch Crickets, which explains his insane ramblings and wild stories.

except the Crabs, those are like Madonna of Guadeloupe devotional candles, pretty much everybody south of san diego has them. you can just assume their presence

and i dont mean little pinch pinch scuttle scuttle lurking on a toilet seat crabs, i mean big angry Dungeness Crabs...

 

[UncleBuck]

napolitano serves at the pleasure of the president, if he did not approve of her remarks or her conclusions he would have SACKED HER.

who gives the orders in the whitehouse these days? the O-Man or his underlings?

i 100% agree.

napolitano owns that statement, and so does obama because he did not fire her. he probably even asks her to speak for him at times!

so yeah, obama totally owns that statement, whatever it is. i did not bother to even read what is likely hyperbole from you.

in the same way, philippe j. rushton owns the purpose statement published by "preserving western civilization". see how that works?

"America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity must be defended...from many directions...immigrants...Islam...blacks...whites have guilt feelings that undermine Western morale..."

that's your guy.

 

[ChesusRice]

What due process do unlawful combatants have? Well, I'm glad you asked:
"Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful."
Yes, that is right, they get a military tribunal, not a hearing and jury of their "peers" (as if such people could even call U.S. citizens peers anyway). So El Tibby... learn our constitution, learn about the Geneva Convention, learn about 'MERICA! before you start poppin' off.
.

So exactly when do they get a military tribunal?
For most it has been 11 years waiting for one?
As to enemy combatants. What uniform where they wearing? What country are they from that we declared war with? Why cant the red cross/crescent visit them?

And finally if our constitution is so strong, why can they not be tried in a court of law or moved to the USA?

 

[ginwilly]

So exactly when do they get a military tribunal?
For most it has been 11 years waiting for one?
As to enemy combatants. What uniform where they wearing? What country are they from that we declared war with? Why cant the red cross/crescent visit them?

And finally if our constitution is so strong, why can they not be tried in a court of law or moved to the USA?

The entire situation is a giant cluster. They should be tried in a court of law, but our courts would never allow a lot of the evidence based on collection and handling methods. Tribunals have different rules that would allow a lot of it but there is still missing/tainted evidence. Trying them in court was never a high priority.

A criminal trial in courts would be a fiasco thanks to the sloppy way GITMO has been handled. Tribunals would lead to guilty convictions and placing them back in GITMO. We've created a no-win situation.

 

[echelon1k1]

The entire situation is a giant cluster. They should be tried in a court of law, but our courts would never allow a lot of the evidence based on collection and handling methods. Tribunals have different rules that would allow a lot of it but there is still missing/tainted evidence. Trying them in court was never a high priority.

A criminal trial in courts would be a fiasco thanks to the sloppy way GITMO has been handled. Tribunals would lead to guilty convictions and placing them back in GITMO. We've created a no-win situation.

Just reading through this list of memos, sent by FBI agents at GITMO to management in DC, detail abuse on many levels, that any judge would throw out without question.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-interested-persons-memo-fbi-documents-concerning-detainee-abuse-guantanamo-ba

""Of concern, DOD interrogators impersonating Supervisory Special Agents of the FBI told a detainee that REDACTED. These same interrogation teams then REDACTED. The detainee was also told by this interrogation team REDACTED. These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee. If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done the ""FBI"" interrogators. The FBI will be left holding the bag before the public.""

""In late 2002 and continuing into mid-2003, the Behavioral Analysis Unit raised concerns over interrogation tactics being employed by the U.S. military. As a result an EC dated 5/30/03, was generated summarizing the FBI's continued objections to the use of [REDACTED] techniques to interrogate prisoners. This EC is attached and includes a collection of military documents discussing and authorizing the techniques. We are not aware of the FBI participating directly in any [REDACTED] interrogations. It should be noted that FBI concerns and objections were documented and presented to Major General Geoffrey Miller....""

 

[Doer]

The entire situation is a giant cluster. They should be tried in a court of law, but our courts would never allow a lot of the evidence based on collection and handling methods. Tribunals have different rules that would allow a lot of it but there is still missing/tainted evidence. Trying them in court was never a high priority.

A criminal trial in courts would be a fiasco thanks to the sloppy way GITMO has been handled. Tribunals would lead to guilty convictions and placing them back in GITMO. We've created a no-win situation.

Only for the tangos. What difference could it possibly make if we only hold these guys in limbo...for their duration?

 

[ginwilly]

Only for the tangos. What difference could it possibly make if we only hold these guys in limbo...for their duration?

Indefinite detention without trial is not really an action I'd support, that feels like New America where we drone bomb teens, not the one that set the example of freedom to the rest of the world. I have no answers or suggestions what to do with these people, it's a cluster.

 

[echelon1k1]

Only for the tangos. What difference could it possibly make if we only hold these guys in limbo...for their duration?

it will be used in the propaganda war - the real battlefield for the hearts and minds... the media... I was just reading about AQ using GITMO as a recruiting tool - http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/how-guantanamo-bays-existence-helps-al-qaeda-recruit-more-terrorists/274956/

conversely letting some of the people out like Sufian bin Qumu and they'll pop up in places like...oh Benghazi

 

[Doer]

I don't see how anything we do CANNOT become a tool against us by Sunni Jihad.

OTH, it shows we are seriously un-predicable...always good, per Sun Tsu.

 

[londonfog]

removed

What are you calling me out on ????

 

[greenlikemoney]

Wonder why a mod hasn't deleted this one then? You basically said the same thing but yet, magically, it still appears. Must be some Harry Potter magic, eh mate?

 

[echelon1k1]

I got this feeling El timid, is a cheesy sock puppet