willard

No, what that means is that Los Angeles, New York and Chicago would be voting in the President every election, regardless of what the rest of the country might want. Cities don't vote, people do. One person one vote regardless of where they live. It's VERY simple, all you have to do is think about it. Unless you live in Chicago then you get to vote as many times as you can work your way through the line. But, to their credit, they do have some rules: If you're dead you only get 3 votes. (How's that go? Vote Democrat and vote often?)

Time to whine Sitting here in the computer lab at school. There are app. 10 people here working at comp. stations, all typing. One person is hitting the keys so hard the noise drowns out everyone else's and it is driving me up a wall! The pisser is this: He is typing probably 5 times as fast as I am! Ok, I'm done whining.

I prefer your version...Always a ParrotHead

Looks like you and Kim Jong Il agree on this point!

I'd say that is acceptable. BTW, I agree 100% that the Bush-heads "Specifically utilised" the term for the purposes you stated.

The HUGE mistake you're making today is believing that it's okay to toss away civil liberties in the pursuit of perceived safety. It's not. That is your opinion. It is my opinion that the good of the whole demands individuals make sacrifices. Many freedoms and liberties are compromised for the common good, i.e. you are free to own a rifle and you are free to target practice with it, but you are not free to target practice with that rifle in the median of an interstate highway.

No, you can't assume either of those points. Are you glad the Japanese killed millions of civilians during their conquests? Yes, they did start the war with us. They did it with a pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor. Me thinks you need to study up on your history a little bit.

What? Those poor little cute furry critters that can't even catch a stupid roadrunner? Why you want to kill them? Why? WHY? WHYYY???? Think of the children!! Oh, ok. Go ahead. Just watch how you handle that weapon. You can put someones eye out with those things.

No I think it is amazing that a country can so feverishly have its youth turn to pro-American pop culture ideals after you fire bombed half the country and then tested out nuclear bombs on them. Heck yeah. And glad we did, too. They started the damn war, we finished it.

Can't we just send Al Gore there to film a documentory?

You sure have a hard time with definitions. Reminds me of another thread about units of weight and mass. I may get confused about things from time to time, but then I'm not perfect. I've made mistakes before and I'm sure I'll make mistakes again. But I learn from those mistakes and move on. And if I can help someone else avoid those same mistakes I try to help them.

I suppose someone posing as you wrote about me (in this very thread): "It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Who is it that wants to rape the Bill of Rights?" I wonder who has discovered your password As I said, you have an issue with people who want to carry firearms for their protection, concealed in particular. All one has to do is look at any thread about gun control and there is a very good chance you have chimed in decrying anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun. Deny that. Did I mention the right to keep and bear arms? No. Did I mention the 2nd ammendment? No. Please refrain from suggesting I did.

(Evil laughing in the background) Welcome to Motel Hello Where even a misspelled word can get you body slammed against the rocky floor! Where there are no gentlemen or ladies...only tormentors! lol! lol! LOL! (evil laughing fades away)

Enemy combatant vs POW From the postings of a couple people here I can see where I was wrong to say they are one in the same. I offer my apologies for any confusion that may have arisen. So now the question is...will you admit you were wrong to say that the term was concocted for the sole purpose of getting around GC and Constitution?

Nobody with enough brain power to spell as well as you actually could believe that the truth of his statement implies that it "shouldn't be too hard" to find original documents. I also don't think you actually believe the position you're arguing. I don't think ANYONE believes the designation "enemy combatant" was invented for any reason than as a clumsy slight-of-hand to avoid the rule of law. Whether I believe it or not is not the question. Jakee made a claim as to intent, I am asking for proof of that claim. If he feels there is not sufficient evidence to back his claim he can simply say so and we can end this debate in a draw. I have no problem with that. The only issue I have a problem with is someone saying I am wrong just because I don't agree with their interpretation of something that can be interpreted in more than one way.

Hmmmm....enlightenment. How's this... I'm about as conservative of a S.O.B. as you'll find anywhere, yet I detested the man more than I did Clinton and Bush combined. He was a bigot that hid behind a pretense of Christianity. Edit to add: After reading this post I sense it could sound more than a little sarcastic. No disrespect intended to Sartre in any way. My apologies if anyone reads it as such.

What do you want, a secret video tape Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld discussing it in the war room? That would be nice, but not needed. A nice tidy document saying, to the effect, "..in order to avoid the hasle of abiding by the GC and Constitution we will be calling all these people "enemy combatants"." Now go fetch. If you're right it shouldn't be too hard and I will issue an apology right quick.

Now it's willard's turn. I'm taking bets on how he replies: A) This isn't proof. It misses on a minor technicality of language. -That seems to be the MO of everyone here, why fight the system?- B) This isn't proof. Your sources are tainted. -Possible, if the sources are indeed tainted- C) This isn't proof. You showed that ECs aren't covered by the Convention but you didn't PROVE that was the original intent of the government. -Actually, that is exactly what I am asking for..proof of intent. After all, that was the claim.- D) I wasn't asking you. I was asking Jakee. -Nah, I converse with anyone. Sometimes I even agree!- E) ... silence... -Nope. As I stated in an earlier post if he can prove his claim then I will admit I was wrong. Unlike some people here I will actually do that from time to time.- How much did you win? Do I get a cut?

Interesting, but it falls far short of proving people got together and decided to create that category for the express purpose of avoiding the responsibilities under the mentioned charters. You have not shown intent which is what Jakee claims.

What you celebrate is up to you. I will celebrate when William Jefferson Clinton leaves this Earth to join his creator. But keep in mind that there are those who do not share your joy, so you must be willing to accept the consequences of public celebration if that is what you choose.

Because it was the answer to a direct question about how YOU would feel if YOU were arrested and held without charge or access to an attorney for 5 years! When you answer that question by saying you wouldn't need to worry about it unless you were actually a terrorist it absolutely implies that you think only guilty people would be held as enemy combatants. but hey - whatever, you have stated that this is not the case and that you accept that innocent people could get arrested and have their constitutional rights stripped from them. Now can you answer the question? If I were in a position of being suspected of aiding known terrorists then NO I would not be upset if the government felt it was in the best interest of public safety that I be held in custody without specific charges being brought against me. I am realistic enough to know that in order for there to be some kind of security that some sacrifices have to be made. (Go ahead...call bullshit. Try to prove that's not how I feel.) HOWEVER, Padilla is not some over-aged college student like me who spends his days studying for midterms and trying to figure where the money for next quaters tuition is coming from. He is a guy who joined a known terrorist group, spent time with them training to kill people, and plotted with them to come here and do just that. He isn't some halo-adorned little child! Now, I have answered your question. Time for you to show me the evidence that "enemy combatant" was coined for the specific purpose of circumventing the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution. You made a claim, said I was wrong when I disagreed with that claim, so PROVE IT!

I agree with that 100%.

I read your comment exactly the same way jakee did. I apologize if you were confused, but here in the SC what somebody thinks is implied doesn't mean squat. I learned that from a professor who frequents these pages.

You said that enemy combatant is the same as POW. POWs have rights under the geneva convention, enemy combatants do not. Do you agree? If you do, then you were wrong to say they are the same as POWs. QED. JHC! I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer! I'll try bold type.... YOU CLAIMED THE TERM "ENEMY COMBATANT" WAS INVENTED TO AVOID GC AND U.S. CONSTITUTION. PROVE IT! What part of that don't you understand? Would you like Mr. Rogers to come over and explain it?

FFS! "I'll worry about that when I'm dealing with known terrorists and plotting to kill dozens or hundreds of people at once. " A clear implication that only the guilty have anything to worry about. If that wasn't what you meant and if you do, in fact, agree that innocent people can also be held with no constitutional rights under this "enemy combatant" status then can you please answer my original question! It's only two pages back, its not hard to find! Holy shit you need to learn how to read! That remark was in reference to Padilla being involved with known terrorists and plotting to kill people. Those are FACTS that you seem to want to just throw away. How in the name of John Wayne's ass can you get the idea I think innocent people cannot be arrested from that statement ????