Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
We already went through these. One of these guys was caught overseas fighting for the enemy. He was shooting at American soldiers and was captured in a combat zone. The other guy was in foreign countrys conspiring with the enemy and then was apprehended right when he entered the US.

Hamdi was sort of an accidental U.S. citizen, but Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil.

Besides, You're talking about why it WOULDN'T happen to us, not that it COULDN'T.

Originally posted by Spanky
If the DOJ has one their cases that doesn't mean that the U.S. government could pick up Slave and I right off the street.

Now you're the one who is just making stuff up.

If the Administration had won those cases, and you or Slave or I were misidentified as terrorists or enemy combatants through some administrative screw-up -- like with the Syrian/Canadian -- yes they sure could have yanked us right off the streets and held us indefinitely without access to counsel.

And we would have had just about zero in terms of legal rights.

Now, as a practical matter -- sure they would have gone easier on us and been more likely to believe us because we're all (I'm betting) well-educated white men.

Moreover, as a matter of policy and politics they have generally NOT been treating U.S. citizens that way since Padilla (have used the criminal justice system instead, and the world has not collapsed), but they sure as shit argued that they COULD/SHOULD be able to do so if deemed necessary, with no judicial review.

The rest of your post was just a diversion.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You mean they'd be deporting me to Queens, NY?

A fate worse than . . . some things.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
but Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil.

He was picked up entering the United States. It use to be that we could screen all people entering the US at sea ports and the border but international flights have changed all that. Yes US airports are on US soil, but legally you have not entered the US until you pass through immigration.

He was seized at the airport coming in from overseas.

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
A fate worse than . . . some things.

S_A_M

Yes, either the Bronx or...shudder...Brooklyn. Oh, the humanity!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


If the Administration had won those cases, and you or Slave or I were misidentified as terrorists or enemy combatants through some administrative screw-up -- like with the Syrian/Canadian -- yes they sure could have yanked us right off the streets and held us indefinitely without access to counsel.

Only if we were entering the US.

[sgtclub]

I didn't STP, but Rangle (sp?) said some pretty cool things today about Chavez.

• RANGEL: AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS... 'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'...

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The appropriate response would have been, sorry Spanky, you are right, you stated your sources right up front, and reported what they said. You did not pretend that allegations were accepted fact, (and when asked why your statements should be accepted as incontrovertible fact, you did not use hearsay and anonymous sources as your evidence of their uncontestable validity).

No, the appropriate response would be, "sorry spanky, I didn't realize that you were posting something that talked about the value of the Bush admin's torture policy when by your own standards you recognize that the post is absolutely meaningless bullshit."

Why post it at all if you thought it was worthless?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Only if we were entering the US.

I really think you're just plain wrong about that.

So, I'll ask you what your basis for that statement is -- just your interpretation of the precedential value of the cases, or some portion of the legal argument?

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, the appropriate response would be, "sorry spanky, I didn't realize that you were posting something that talked about the value of the Bush admin's torture policy when by your own standards you recognize that the post is absolutely meaningless bullshit."

Why post it at all if you thought it was worthless?

There is a difference between thinking something is worthless and thinking something is incontrovertible fact. I didn't say it was worthless. I thought the guy from ABC sounded pretty credible. I found him very convincing. And what he said shed some doubt on the idea that torture never works. Eventhough I found him credible, I thought it important that people knew right up front where I was getting the information from. I wanted people to know that I wasn't implying that I got the information from a primary source or that it was incontrovertible.

I have no problem with people posting that so and so has alleged this. that is not meaningless B.S. What I do have problem with is someone saying something like "the US is plannning to nuke Iran". And then when asked for a source getting some anonymous source listed on a left wing blog. If he has said, so and so has alleged that the US is planning on nuking Iran, then fine (actually I would prefer if people that were quoted have some semblence of credibility but with Ty I would just be happy with the phrase "it has been alleged").

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is a difference between thinking something is worthless and thinking something is incontrovertible fact. I didn't say it was worthless. I thought the guy from ABC sounded pretty credible. I found him very convincing. And what he said shed some doubt on the idea that torture never works. Eventhough I found him credible, I thought it important that people knew right up front where I was getting the information from. I wanted people to know that I wasn't implying that I got the information from a primary source or that it was incontrovertible.

I have no problem with people posting that so and so has alleged this. that is not meaningless B.S. What I do have problem with is someone saying something like "the US is plannning to nuke Iran". And then when asked for a source getting some anonymous source listed on a left wing blog. If he has said, so and so has alleged that the US is planning on nuking Iran, then fine (actually I would prefer if people that were quoted have some semblence of credibility but with Ty I would just be happy with the phrase "it has been alleged").

On the torture thing, though, you have to admit that Ty quoted a pretty good source.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Watchdog?

Whose members including Algeria, Cuba, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

This is perhaps the most unintentionally funny thing I've read today. Thanks for that.

I thought that Hugo Chavez's comment about still smelling the sulpher from the devil's having been in the room the day before was kinda funny, but on the whole, his speech--epecially his referring to Bush as the devil for the entirety of it--did nothing to make me think particularly highly of the UN.

ETA: Or, because I didn't scroll before posting, 2, to what Rangel said. I had a discussion with three very, very liberal people this morning about Chavez's stand up act yesterday and we all agreed it was offensively disrespectful of the President.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
On the torture thing, though, you have to admit that Ty quoted a pretty good source.

Ty said torture doesn't work, then he admitted it does- flip flop?

[nononono]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I didn't STP, but Rangle (sp?) said some pretty cool things today about Chavez.

• RANGEL: AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS... 'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'...

Rangel said that? Wow.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by nononono
Rangel said that? Wow.

Boon: They can't do that do that to our pledges.
Otter: Only we can do that to our pledges.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
Rangel said that? Wow.

Pelosi went off also. She was not happy. I have heard Harkin supported Chavez but I have not actually seen the transcript. I have also heard through the grapevine that Murtha is trying to unseat Pelosi. Anyone know anything?