i did. But we all know most slashdotters don't actually read articles. and really...should't you complain to Slashdot that content doesn't fit your browser window, and not that i use a textbox for what its for within the limits of the site's boundaries? 8)
did you miss the part that said the president can declare anyone an enemy combatant? Second you prove the case because it says the geneva convention does not recognize terrorist organizations from being protected by ANY RIGHTS. They don't HAVE rights! We give them the same rights as POWs by our own choice, not by obligation to any international law!
This has been this way since World War II and continuously upheld since. Congress reaffirmed it in 2002. What do you not understand? You people bandy about the "we won" convention every time the current congress does something wacko but cant take the same medicine when the other way around?
“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).
The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.
Authority to Detain
The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.
Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.
Detainee Rights
All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.
The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002). As noted above, however, we have permitted the ICRC access to the detainees, and we have notified each detainee’s country of origin that the detainee is in DoD control.
Even worse than the fairness doctrine. Make successful broadcasters support unsuccessful broadcasters out of their profits. Of course these measures would only cover conservative talk radio, and wouldn't unhinge the left wing media bias on TV.
Correction, there are no terrorists, only criminals. This is why we are prosecuting a known terrorist who admitted to masterminding the 9/11 attacks, we dragged him out of another country as an enemy combatant, held him for 8 years out of country, and are trying him with the same rights as an American citizen in a very public media circus that is our criminal court system, instead of under a military tribunal.
The only thing keeping me using firefox is the add-ons. Firefox's wonky instability and constant updating has me feeling that I can't rely on it every time i need my porn fix.
Its irresponsible as a site designer who designs sites viewable for for the masses to design sites that that make use of bleeding edge technologies in browser development. Unless your target audience is the 2% that downloads the new version of IE the same month it comes out, then what does it matter? Yes, its arguable that Microsoft has and can break even "safe" code but not so much that it generally will make a site unusable (again assuming the designer is not a complete fool).
Internet Explorer 8 was final released March 19, 2009. Internet Explorer 8 Readiness Toolkit was released with the beta March 5, 2008. So, do you really need MORE than a year to get your site together?
Some people pay into a government provided pension, Teachers etc, rather than paying into social security, therefore their pension will offset (in most cases nullify) any social security they would be due. Self employed people tend not to pay (though they are supposed to). Wage employees have no choice.
The problem is two-fold (and trust me I am on the same side as you). First people who are citizens who dont have the good fortune of getting hit by a car and rushed to the ER with a certified copy of their Birth Certificate or N-550 Naturalization certificate can be refused care until such paperwork can be found (unless the provision was exempted for emergency medical).
Second it is yet more bureaucratic nonsense that you would have to deal with every time you check in. "Please fill out these forms to check in and provide a certified copy of your birth certificate". Working for Social Security I can tell you first hand there are a fair number of people born here that don't have certified certificates of birth available (or so they claim).
Not true, that system is no longer in place, all legislators now pay into Social Security, so their pensions are no longer offset. The Government Pension Offset (GPO) effects only those who get a government pension and DON'T pay into Social Security. As the Liberal media pointed out last year when they drubbed McCain for being old because he collected Social Security.
These debates are only silly because all your life you've been taxed WAY more than we are for your "Universal right". Roads here are all built by private companies (generally contracted through the govt) who bid for the project, public schools in America suck compared to private schools, the police in this country are in sad shape (perhaps a ramped up private security force WOULD indeed do better, perhaps again contracted by the govt).
And your healthcare is abysmal in comparison to ours. I have lots of friends and family in Canada. My friend's grandmother they just allowed to die of infection in a hospital, after shipping her around to 3 different hospitals because one after another didn't have facilities for her.
No offense, but you can keep your free healthcare, you just don't know what good healthcare really is.
I don't want government run health care because i just don't think most of these people should have a share of MY money. I got up this morning, i went to work. I dealt with crap all damn day. I came home and cooked dinner. I wasted time on slashdot and went to bed. Why do i have to pay for the people who cant do the same thing, or worse CHOOSE not to. They can call me selfish, i call it being responsible. my motivation for going to work every day is so i don't have to live like a leach on other people.
Washington also has a business operations tax that taxes on gross receipts of doing business. You cant for a minute tell me that doesn't pay for a fireman to run out to MS if the building is on fire.
Slashdot Mirror
i did. But we all know most slashdotters don't actually read articles. and really...should't you complain to Slashdot that content doesn't fit your browser window, and not that i use a textbox for what its for within the limits of the site's boundaries? 8)
No actually i am referring to reporters who have "tingles going up their leg" every time they see obama. See uber-liberal rag the Huffington Post
did you miss the part that said the president can declare anyone an enemy combatant? Second you prove the case because it says the geneva convention does not recognize terrorist organizations from being protected by ANY RIGHTS. They don't HAVE rights! We give them the same rights as POWs by our own choice, not by obligation to any international law!
This has been this way since World War II and continuously upheld since. Congress reaffirmed it in 2002. What do you not understand? You people bandy about the "we won" convention every time the current congress does something wacko but cant take the same medicine when the other way around?
Shamelessly stolen from The Council on Foreign Relations
“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).
The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.
Authority to Detain
The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.
Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.
Detainee Rights
All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.
The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002). As noted above, however, we have permitted the ICRC access to the detainees, and we have notified each detainee’s country of origin that the detainee is in DoD control.
Even worse than the fairness doctrine. Make successful broadcasters support unsuccessful broadcasters out of their profits. Of course these measures would only cover conservative talk radio, and wouldn't unhinge the left wing media bias on TV.
Correction, there are no terrorists, only criminals. This is why we are prosecuting a known terrorist who admitted to masterminding the 9/11 attacks, we dragged him out of another country as an enemy combatant, held him for 8 years out of country, and are trying him with the same rights as an American citizen in a very public media circus that is our criminal court system, instead of under a military tribunal.
The only thing keeping me using firefox is the add-ons. Firefox's wonky instability and constant updating has me feeling that I can't rely on it every time i need my porn fix.
Its irresponsible as a site designer who designs sites viewable for for the masses to design sites that that make use of bleeding edge technologies in browser development. Unless your target audience is the 2% that downloads the new version of IE the same month it comes out, then what does it matter? Yes, its arguable that Microsoft has and can break even "safe" code but not so much that it generally will make a site unusable (again assuming the designer is not a complete fool).
Internet Explorer 8 was final released March 19, 2009. Internet Explorer 8 Readiness Toolkit was released with the beta March 5, 2008. So, do you really need MORE than a year to get your site together?
They are pulling the plug on Oprah in 2011, you uninformed clod!
Or at least I believe that was the basis of his...jest...
Or we could understand that nomatter how much we suck their dick, they dont like westerners at a cultural level that cant be fixed!
Some people pay into a government provided pension, Teachers etc, rather than paying into social security, therefore their pension will offset (in most cases nullify) any social security they would be due. Self employed people tend not to pay (though they are supposed to). Wage employees have no choice.
The problem is two-fold (and trust me I am on the same side as you). First people who are citizens who dont have the good fortune of getting hit by a car and rushed to the ER with a certified copy of their Birth Certificate or N-550 Naturalization certificate can be refused care until such paperwork can be found (unless the provision was exempted for emergency medical).
Second it is yet more bureaucratic nonsense that you would have to deal with every time you check in. "Please fill out these forms to check in and provide a certified copy of your birth certificate". Working for Social Security I can tell you first hand there are a fair number of people born here that don't have certified certificates of birth available (or so they claim).
Yes, and have fewer uber liberal teachers.
No, its much much worse.
Not true, that system is no longer in place, all legislators now pay into Social Security, so their pensions are no longer offset. The Government Pension Offset (GPO) effects only those who get a government pension and DON'T pay into Social Security. As the Liberal media pointed out last year when they drubbed McCain for being old because he collected Social Security.
Would you want to pay for my 5 heart attacks? I wouldnt blame you if you didn't, because i don't want to pay 2 cents for yours.
These debates are only silly because all your life you've been taxed WAY more than we are for your "Universal right". Roads here are all built by private companies (generally contracted through the govt) who bid for the project, public schools in America suck compared to private schools, the police in this country are in sad shape (perhaps a ramped up private security force WOULD indeed do better, perhaps again contracted by the govt).
And your healthcare is abysmal in comparison to ours. I have lots of friends and family in Canada. My friend's grandmother they just allowed to die of infection in a hospital, after shipping her around to 3 different hospitals because one after another didn't have facilities for her.
No offense, but you can keep your free healthcare, you just don't know what good healthcare really is.
kookoo....kookoo...
HAH HAH HAHAHAHA
I don't want government run health care because i just don't think most of these people should have a share of MY money. I got up this morning, i went to work. I dealt with crap all damn day. I came home and cooked dinner. I wasted time on slashdot and went to bed. Why do i have to pay for the people who cant do the same thing, or worse CHOOSE not to. They can call me selfish, i call it being responsible. my motivation for going to work every day is so i don't have to live like a leach on other people.
which killed less people than a month's worth of auto accidents in this country.
Oh, so that makes everything okay then.
And yet here you are pissing and moaning about an operating system that you have no intent on even trying, letalone attempting an unbiased review of.
Fixed that for you.
Because the quality of youtube comments is only marginally better than the quality of slashdot comments.
Uh Keynsian hogwash is the theory that government can boost the economy by increasing its own spending.
I am struggling to connect your dots.
Washington also has a business operations tax that taxes on gross receipts of doing business. You cant for a minute tell me that doesn't pay for a fireman to run out to MS if the building is on fire.