Where did the "dirty bomb" go?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

He may technically be an american citizen

Well how about that? There's suddenly a NEW category:

POW
Enemy combatant
Citizen

and now...

Technical citizen

I wonder what horrors will be done to people who are "technical citizens" instead of "actual citizens".

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

BTW, have you found a suitable replacement for DU? One that performs as well or better but without the health problems? Thought not.

Why is the burden on ME to find a replacement. Have YOU found a replacement for mustard gas, which has, quite appropriately, been banned?

Because you are one of the folks bitching about it being used, that's why.

I would have bitched about mustard gas too. I guess mustard gas is fine with you.

I think DU should be banned, just like mustard gas.

Mustard gas is banned because of its explicit, demonstrable and intended effect.

DU is completely different, its intended and agreed effectiveness as a penetrator is not the problem (at least its opponents will not admit that's the problem). The opponents of DU point to marginal and unproven health concerns relating to side effects, in doing so they point to an unproven syndrome of immeasurable statistical significance with over a dozen alternative claimed causes and speculate, all while ignoring reasonable precautions that might mitigate any effects of exposure if it was a factor. In doing so they resort to the utterly scurrilous tactic of labeling the simple use of a metal in a munition as a WMD, and you KNOW this is by association with other isotopes used in real WMDs and nothing to do with the intrinsic properties of the metal.

You have used a number of specious arguments attacking DU, equating it to mustard gas is characteristically misleading.

Uranium oxide dust (the product of the munition after it hits the target and burns) IS PROVABLY TOXIC and readily ingested.

Stop trying to apologize for the unethical use of this substance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

He was an american citizen, arrested in Chicago!

Padilla -- who also goes by the name of Abdullah Al Muhajir -- was arrested at O'Hare International Airport after arriving from Pakistan on a connecting flight through Zurich. A Muslim convert with a violent criminal past in the United States, Padilla had spent recent years in the Middle East.

He may technically be an american citizen but I think he was up to no good. Why do you think he suddenly decided he wanted to return to the U.S.? Certainly the government had some issues. They probably can't prove the "dirty bomb" theory but I have no problem with their actions here.

Are YOU technically a citizen too, or some other kind? It seems that you have no problem in depriving technical citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Are YOU technically a citizen too, or some other kind? It seems that you have no problem in depriving technical citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I'm not sure what's "Technical" about being a citizen. I think there may be "legal" definitions.

What an abused language.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

So much oversimplification going on here. You're looking for perfect and it doesn't exist. For clean and comfortable and it doesn't exist. And in all your pontification I haven't heard anyone say how they would handle it differently.

I would not destroy the freedoms and protections afforded to me by the law in order to defend against some other threat. Try the famous quote from "A man for all seasons"

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law.

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that.

More: Oh? And when the law was down — and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[airdvr 210]

I would not destroy the freedoms and protections afforded to me by the law in order to defend against some other threat

OK...tell me what you would have done with Padilla. You know he's associated himself with terror organizations...he was no boy scout when he was in the US a few years back. You have some intelligence indicating he is planning a dirty bomb attack but you can't prove it and he just showed up at your front door asking to come into your country.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[livendive 8]

Quote

Enemy combatant is just another term for prisoner of war. Jeez, even I could figure that one out.
POWs can be held without charges as long as the conflict is ongoing.

And when the conflict is something like the "war on terror" or the "war on drugs" with no definable endpoint, we can hold 'em forever without having to justify it?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Yeah, it's just a freaky coincidence that when the government started playing hardball with terrorists here all the attacks stopped. That must have been when you started wearing your majic shark tooth.

I seem to remember something going down at Virginia Tech last month. That's not what you're talking about? It occurs to me that there are a bunch of attacks going on against US military interests abroad. That's not what you're talking about? Oh wait, you referring to just 1993 and 2001? Ya think it might be appropriate to wait a little while before claiming success? Nah...I see your point. Merely claiming "Mission Accomplished" makes it so.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[airdvr 210]

Are YOU technically a citizen too, or some other kind? It seems that you have no problem in depriving technical citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

When I said he was technically a citizen I never said he wasn't a citizen, or a technical citizen. He is a citizen in the same way you or I am with a couple of very big exceptions...I don't think the government could make this statement about you...

The Justice Department said last year that Padilla has told interrogators that before the September 11 terror attacks he met with al Qaeda's late military chief, Mohamed Atef, about the apartment bombing plot, and Abu Zubaydah, the terror group's accused operations chief who is now in custody, about stealing radioactive material to be used in a crude explosive device.

... and if they could make that statement about you I'd prefer they treat you the same way. Now, someone here will parrot the part about how the government can come and just take you away...tin foil hat and all.

Please, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how they would have done it differently.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

>Did you ever consider that the reason there has been no terrorist attacks on US homeland since 9/11 . . .

You mean other than the anthrax attack.

[billvon 3,111]

>There is hard evidence against Padilla . . . .

Then charge him with a crime and let a judge/jury decide if he is guilty of it.

>Hinckley was never convicted of a crime....

See above.

>Yeah, it's just a freaky coincidence that when the government started
>playing hardball with terrorists here all the attacks stopped. That must
>have been when you started wearing your majic shark tooth.

Again, except for that anthrax attack. And the school shootings. And the Fort Dix plot, foiled by (amazingly) regular ol' police work allowed under the constitution.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

When I said he was technically a citizen I never said he wasn't a citizen, or a technical citizen. He is a citizen in the same way you or I am with a couple of very big exceptions...

Excellent. We're narrowing it down. All we need now is a constitutional amendment that says,

Quote

Citizenship rights will be denied anyone about whom the government can make this statement:

The Justice Department says this person has told interrogators that before the September 11 terror attacks he met with al Qaeda's late military chief, Mohamed Atef, about the apartment bombing plot, and Abu Zubaydah, the terror group's accused operations chief who is now in custody, about stealing radioactive material to be used in a crude explosive device.

Or maybe airdvr prefers a system where the laws say citizenship rights will never be denied but then the US government just sort of does it anyway when it seems important.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[airdvr 210]

As I thought..nothing about how to do it differently. Where are all you people who know everything about everything?

This is typical...bitch about the problem but offer no solution or viable alternative.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

>nothing about how to do it differently.

?? Several people have already suggested how to handle it differently. Arrest Padilla. Charge him with a crime. Let him have his day in court. If he's found guilty, throw the book at him. Very simple, and it's been working for well over 200 years.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

This is typical...bitch about the problem but offer no solution or viable alternative.

It's pointless to propose solutions to someone who denies there's a problem. The point of "bitching about the problem" (as you put it) is to convince you there IS a problem.

However you seem to approve of a government that comes up with new categories of people and their treatment outside of the rule of law when circumstances are apparently urgent.

So no amount of bitching that the US government is making all sorts of ad hoc exceptions to its own laws will bother you. You like it that way.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Where did I say that? Please, Dear Sir, point out where I made that statement so that I may correct it.

It is a fact of life that innocent people will fall under suspicion of grevious crimes and get arrested. It is a fact of life that the cases against these people will be so strong (innocent though they may be) that they go to trial where the case can be heard by a jury. Those arresting the enemy combatants will make mistakes also.

For you to think that no-one will ever be arrested and detained for several years without access to legal council unless they were actually doing something wrong is incredibly naive.

Wow. Two of a kind. First Kallend says I accused him of being against the second ammendment (which i did not) and now you are trying to claim I said innocent people will nevr get arrested. At least Kallend shut up when he couldn't find where I made the statement he claimed.

Once again, this time read carefully so you can give an honest try at a respectable reply...
"Where did I say that? Please, Dear Sir, point out where I made that statement so that I may correct it."

You made the claim about something I supposedly said, now it's time to quit evading and provide proof.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

>nothing about how to do it differently.

?? Several people have already suggested how to handle it differently. Arrest Padilla. Charge him with a crime. Let him have his day in court. If he's found guilty, throw the book at him. Very simple, and it's been working for well over 200 years.

And if you don't have solid evidence of a crime?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

This is typical...bitch about the problem but offer no solution or viable alternative.

It's pointless to propose solutions to someone who denies there's a problem. The point of "bitching about the problem" (as you put it) is to convince you there IS a problem.

However you seem to approve of a government that comes up with new categories of people and their treatment outside of the rule of law when circumstances are apparently urgent.

So no amount of bitching that the US government is making all sorts of ad hoc exceptions to its own laws will bother you. You like it that way.

Humor me. What's your proposed solution?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

>And if you don't have solid evidence of a crime?

Then you go to court and try to prove your case. A jury will decide if it's in our best interests to let him go or keep him in jail.

If you have NO significant evidence of a crime? Then you let him go.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

No, YOU'RE wrong. Unless, of course, you can provide hard evidence (opinions don't count) of the claim that the term was specifically created to bypass the GC and the U.S. Constitution. If you can I will gladly admitt I was wrong.

Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the Geneva convention?
Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the US constitution?

I'm still waiting. Questions don't count any more than opinions do. Hard evidence, Jakee, hard evidence.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Humor me. What's your proposed solution?

Law.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, YOU'RE wrong. Unless, of course, you can provide hard evidence (opinions don't count) of the claim that the term was specifically created to bypass the GC and the U.S. Constitution. If you can I will gladly admitt I was wrong.

Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the Geneva convention?
Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the US constitution?

I'm still waiting. Questions don't count any more than opinions do. Hard evidence, Jakee, hard evidence.

As far as I'm concerned my case is closed, unless you can show me that, in the eyes of the whitehouse, enemy combatants have rights under either the geneva convention or the US constitution.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

"Where did I say that? Please, Dear Sir, point out where I made that statement so that I may correct it."

You stated that you (the specific you, willard, not the general you) would never be locked up unless you were actually a terrorist.

I don't see how that statement can hold unless you have absolute faith in the ability of law enforcement to only arrest and hold without trial those who are terrorists.

If you do not have absolute faith in that ability then could you please answer my original question.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

"Where did I say that? Please, Dear Sir, point out where I made that statement so that I may correct it."

You stated that you (the specific you, willard, not the general you) would never be locked up unless you were actually a terrorist.

I don't see how that statement can hold unless you have absolute faith in the ability of law enforcement to only arrest and hold without trial those who are terrorists.

If you do not have absolute faith in that ability then could you please answer my original question.

Please please please show me where I said that and I WILL answer your question!! Just copy and paste, it's not hard!

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, YOU'RE wrong. Unless, of course, you can provide hard evidence (opinions don't count) of the claim that the term was specifically created to bypass the GC and the U.S. Constitution. If you can I will gladly admitt I was wrong.

Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the Geneva convention?
Are Enemy Combatants afforded the protection of the US constitution?

I'm still waiting. Questions don't count any more than opinions do. Hard evidence, Jakee, hard evidence.

As far as I'm concerned my case is closed, unless you can show me that, in the eyes of the whitehouse, enemy combatants have rights under either the geneva convention or the US constitution.

Your case is closed? You make accusations and tell people they are wrong yet you fail to provide any facts to support your claims other than your opinion. You made the claim that the term "enemy combatant" was specifically created to bypass the GC and the U.S. Constitution. I have asked for some evidence of this, you refuse to provide any.
How freakin' hypocritical is THAT???