willard

Maybe a little canadian history would be useful here. Let me educate you. The monarchy here is symbolic only, has none of those characteristics I know well from the U.S., and this country by and large doesn't ... nah... forget it. You are quite right. I meant to address that response to Jakee but you got it instead. My bad.

Nice of you to post that, but you know how much of that is in Padillas corner since we are at war with terrorism and he was cooperating with the enemy? None of it. Nada. Zilch. I stand by my view that he is exactly where he should be until determined to be of no threat.

If I had my choice I'd pick Jakee-World over Willard-World where the government ignores its own defining document's limitations on its power, destroys people's lives in secret, and hides information about its actions to prevent the peepul from learning enough to piss them off. In Willard-World, King Willard lectures the peepul to keep quiet, stop noticing problems with the government, and just let them do whatever they want without limits. I like peaches & cream a lot more. See, you're confused again. Your country has the monarchy, not mine. We got rid of them over 200 years ago. In Willard-World people can't always do what they want. If they are a threat to others we lock 'em up. Don't like it? Tough. You don't have to. After all, you have Jakee-World where nobody ever does bad things.

Anyone can say that they understand something, demonstrating that understanding is a different thing. Lets examine - you stated that Padilla DID (your emphasis) conspire to plant a dirty bomb. I said prove it. You said "what makes you think the government can't prove it?" I said "You said he DID it, prove it." You said "The government must have enough evidence to prove it because they arrested him." So do you see that when you say that you are sure that Padilla DID it, and that you are sure that the government has enough evidence to prove his guilt "because they went to the trouble of arresting him" it makes it very difficult for me to believe that you do understand the standards of evidence? Finally, do you admit that when you said "Padilla DID it" that you were asserting something you could not possibly know? Oh for crying out loud. The Government had sufficient evidence to take Padilla into custody for conspiring to build and use a "dirty bomb" Does that make you feel better? Did it really change anything? Padilla is still in costody, I still feel he belongs there, you still feel sorry for him and want him turned loose, and my neighbors dog still barks too much. I have no obligation to justify my opinion to you and even less to justify why my government takes one of it's own citizens into custody for suspicion of plotting mass murder. Now you can go back to Jakee-World where everything is peaches & cream, where perfect harmony is disrupted only by the sounds of butterflies fluttering in the air.

Gotta admit, Kallend stays true to form. "Fuck the truth! I know the FACTS!" It's almost laughable in his predictability.

Yeah guys, everyone stop investigating and discussing the bad things Willard's heros do. Keep your eyes down. Don't involve yourself in the affairs of your government (when it's republican). That's the american way. That's just the problem...they don't want to investigate. They automatically make the assumption that if the Bush administration did it, then it has to be against the Constitution. I suspect you fall right in there with them.

Hah! "Padilla DID conspire with known terrorists to build and detonate a "dirty bomb" here in the U.S." "I, unlike you, have at least a moderate amount of faith in our government and trust that they have enough evidence to prove those charges." Anyway, do you now want to admit that when you said "Padilla DID conspire to build a dirty bomb" you were asserting something you couldn't possibly know? Good job at evading the question. What part of "I never said he was guilty because he was arrested" don't you understand? I've explained to you TWICE now that I am fully aware of the relation between evidence needed to arest vs try vs convict. Evidently you don't understand that simple concept.

Why don't you instead spell out for us the instances where you don't think the government is raping the Constitution. I'll save you the trouble...the answer is "none". Why don't you bitch about something else for a change? Better yet, why don't you spend your time doing something constructive instead of bitching about what other people are doing?

I've never said that I know he wasn't. All through this discussion I have been questioning your assertion that you know that Padilla did plot to plant a dirty bomb. An assertion you have not retracted even though you have no idea what evidence (or lack of) there is against him, and an assertion that you have supported by saying "but he was arrested, he must be guilty!!" You are hanging on to a completely untenable position. There is simply no way that you can assert that Padilla is guilty, and asserting that you know he was guilty because he was arrested is naive in the extreme. 1: I never said he was guilty because he was arrested. You want to think I did. I said he was arrested because there was evidence of some kind. Big difference there in case you need that pointed out. I also said the evidence neede to arrest is much less than the evidence needed to take to trial and even that is much less than the amount needed to convict. 2: The prosecution has on hand an application to attend a terrorist training camp. The app. has Padilla's fingerprints on it and he is known to have attended. That is the hard evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating the rest. Not enough for you? Again, too bad. You aren't the one making the decisions in the case are you? So, as far as this case concerning Padilla, your opinion means about the same as mine....diddly squat. In your opinion I am naive to think he is guilty. In my opinion I think you are naive to believe he wasn't planning to do anything.

Bull-fucking-shit. I'm not trying to change the world here. I'm just curious as to how you know that Padilla was guilty of the most serious offence for which he was arrested even though he hasn't even been charged with it, let alone convicted. You seem to think that merely being arrested for a terror offense is enough to guarantee guilt. So I'm asking the question, are the people released without charge from Gitmo after years of imprisonment guilty or innocent? How do you know he wasn't? The Gov'ment had cause to pick him up, the reasons have been addressed many times here. Go back and read. As to your other question, read my last reply. It's a war. Shit happens. And I have no trouble sleeping at night.

They could arm themselves with SKS rifles. I have a Yugo made model, cost me $99. I treated it like crap trying to get it to jam and mal. Left it outside overnight in -20 F. Worked perfect. Left it out in the rain. No problem. Left it in the cab of the tractor while fitting one spring. Got bounced around covered and filled with dirt, grime, dust, moisture 'til i thought I had destroyed it. It functioned perfectly, throwing dust and goop everywhere the first few rounds. I have put 2000 rounds through it between cleanings. Not a hickup. That rifle has never, ever missfired or jammed. Not a single time. And it still, amazingly, will hold under 3" group at 100 yds. Only drawback is the 10 round mag.

Good enough for me. Don't like my opinion? Tough.

There were "terrorists" held in Gitmo for years who were eventually released without charge. If they were innocent how come they were there for so long? Or in willard world were they definitely guilty just because they were arrested? As opposed to Jakee-world where everyone walks around with flowers in their hair, nobody hurts anyone else, and love & peaceful tranquility rule the land. Yeah, right. In case you haven't heard there is a war on terror. Maybe you don't like that, I don't care. Deal with it how you see fit. In wars people get taken prisoner. In the past they have been called POWs, this time they are called "enemy combatants". Maybe you don't like that, I don't care. Deal with it how you see fit. Maybe you would have prefered those people had been shot dead instead of held at Gitmo? Yeah, that's probably it.

Places I go in caves have seen only microbial life for thousands of years. Just good conservation practice not to mess up a beautiful room of 'tites 'n 'mites with a pile of poop. Most animal feces carries no bacteria that can harm us. There are a few exceptions though. On the other hand human feces is loaded with really nasty bacteria and stuff that can make you really sick if it contaminates your drinking water. Now if we can just get my neighbor to clean up after his dog. (I had to clean HIS dogs poop off the sidewalk the other day!)

The whole of the debate can pretty much be summed up from things you mentioned. I think it can be assumed that there is some eveidence of some kind somewhere. What it is, how solid, and how easily obtained is not known to any of us here in the forum. After all, if there was no evidence whatsoever then the gov. would have no interest at all in him. So that leaves one major point of disagreement, that being whether the evidence available is enough to warrant his being held. My opinion is that, due to the circumstances and the seriousness of the acts he is purported to have been planning, he should be held until a complete and thurough investigation was complete. If that meant classifying him as an enemy combatant to avoid having to release him then so be it. Others here feel differently, and that is their right. Unfortunately there was one who felt it neccessary to resort to name calling because my viewpoint didn't mirror his.

On extended stays inside a cave you make a "burrito". Spread a small sheet of foil on the ground, poop on it, roll it up, stuff it inside a ziplock bag, put that inside another ziplock bag, and put it all in the bottom of your cave pack to carry out with you. Just don't get your lunch mixed up with your "burrito"!

There is due process in place that is supposed t prevent people from being arrested and detained without evidence. The US specifically circumvented those laws and rules and in 5 years never had te show any form of evidence. Why do you think they did that? if they had evidence, why not process him like every other american citizen is supposed to be processed? Assuming that there must be solid evidence because he was arrested is not only naive, but scary. The rules, laws and regulations for due process are in place because all throughout history (and even right in the US itself) people have been jailed for political gain or general fear. So I ask you, why would the US government hold a US citizen and completely disregard due process. History has shown only one possible answer to that question. Why do you think this time it is all different? I'm dumb. Do me the favor of telling me, if there is no evidence Padilla was conspiring to do bad things,why has been held all this time?

Bullshit - you definitely are scared of them. So scared you're willing to remove their constitutional protections because you think they might commit a crime against our country. Non citizens - you might have some leg to stand on here - the Constitution doesn't give them the same rights. But when you try to say that for the greater good it's fine that some people are jailed for years without trial, it's clear you're afraid. Or have no respect for American ideals. Yeah, your right. I am so scared of them I keep them as friends so I can keep watch over them. Nice of you to tell me how I feel, though.

I'm going to try to make an instructive point in big bold words but it's going to be lost anyway. Oh well, here we go: I WAS ILLUSTRATING YOUR ERROR. THAT 'FAKE' LOGIC LESSON WAS ILLUSTRATING WHAT YOU HAD DONE! I'M QUITE AWARE THAT IT WAS BULLSHIT. I WAS MAKING FUN OF YOU! You may now proceed to misunderstand. Don't make fun of me. It hurts my feelings. I'm very sensitive you know. BTW, I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) that nobody has yet to answer the question I posted concerning situations A & B. I pretty much gave free reign for anyone to rip on me without repercussion. Very strange.

Scratching her brain?

OooOooOoo... I'm so confused... {wobble}... What's going on here? Willard says he's got it all nailed down and everyone else doesn't get it... It must be so... His strength is all I have left now... Your childish insults are amusing. If nothing else they do relieve some stress by making me chuckle when i read them. According to your "logic", the "logic" you use to try to insult me.... If two ideas are not 100% similar, then they MUST be 100% dissimilar.

It's funny to watch you repeatedly make logic errors then when you're corrected you announce that you're the one correcting them for the same error. Does that technique confuse your professors? Do they give you better grades in their muddle? "Huh," they say. "Huh, I thought willard made a mistake but he says I made the mistake. I guess I'll just give him an 'A+' and sort it out later." WHOOOOOSH! PING! You are so far off track you lost sight of the station.

Why? Because they could, and with the support of scared sheep like you, they can do it for any reason they like - ranging from probable cause to personal dislike. And that's the similarity to Stalin - you don't believe that the millions of people he had jailed or killed were all enemies of the Soviet Union, do you? He was consolidating his power, pure and simple. I never said there was no similarity. In fact, I said there was. I also said there is a similarity to other situations where people are detained. The accusation was that Gitmo is operated much like Stalin's gulag. That would mean mass executions, etc. If that is NOT what was meant than maybe a better example could have been given? Who's the scared sheep? I spend my days on a campus that has a very substantial population of people from the middle-east as well as all other areas of the world. Many of them spend their time handling highly dangerous materials and classified information. To me they are just other students, friends, and professors. I'm not afraid of them...are you?

I hope you never serve on a jury with an attitude like that. Having enough evidence to arrest someone does not mean there is enough to convict. I'm sure you know that without me telling you. I hope you never teach with an attitude like yours. Oh, wait...you do. Thank God it's not where I take classes.

I had the same thoughts. Since I have never served in the military, I'll have to ask of those who have and, in particular, those who have been in combat. In a combat situation such as we have in Iraq, just how important is the accurracy difference between an AK-47 and an M-16 at expected engagement distances and under stress?