Pelosi is going to be two heartbeats away from the Oval Office, do you really want to make it one?
Think about it, a new vice president would have to be approved by the Senate. If MT and/or VA goes to the Dems, there's no way they would approve anyone, they'd just sit on their hands like they're going to with judges.
This blithe "This is how war really is. People die." just stuns me
Are you saying people don't die in war?
I am a Marine enlisted infantry veteran.
Uh-huh. You sound like a coward, not a Marine. And yes I would say that to your face if you were in front of me.
I'm former Navy, so was my grandfather (petty officer in WW2), father (retired Chief), brother-in-law, and older brother, the last two of whom are still in (one's a Commander, the other's a Captain). All of us agree, you don't win a war by making nice-nice with the enemy, you do it by killing the enemy.
Go watch Patton sometime, and understand how a real warrior approaches war. Not this chickenshit "let's all be friends" crap we've been doing in Iraq.
That's not how I read it. It seems to me more like each signing statement is a reminder to Congress that they can pass laws, but it's up to the executive branch to enforce them. Kind of like Jackson's famous response to the Supreme Court's decision on relocating the Cherokees: "It's Mr. Marshall's law, let him enforce it."
And each signing statement only affects the executive branch, not anyone else. So it really is about telling Congress to stuff it and not tell the executive how to do his job. Now if only we'd get a President who would do the same thing to the Supreme Court, we might get some more balance in our government.
Yes, of course, because any attempt by Clinton to do anything about it was simply "wagging the dog", correct?
100% incorrect. It's because the man literally did almost nothing for eight long years. He lobbed a few cruise missiles in '98, which was a good idea in theory even if the actual implementation sucked (I was never one who questioned the timing of the strikes, I recognized then and now that you can't control when targets of opportunity come up, and you can't ignore them because you're in the middle of something else). But other than that, his administration failed to do anything substantive in combating global terror. For eight long years, twelve times as long as Bush was in office before 9/11.
While you're throwing blame around, do be sure to note that Bush likewise ignored the threat for the first 8 months of his office.
Like I said:
"Go read the 9/11 Commission Report, there's plenty of blame to go around. But at least Bush did something about it, Clinton just ignored it and hoped it would all go away so he could back to chasing interns."
But I know, Bush is horrible because he didn't do enough in eight months. But Clinton is a saint because he did nothing for eight years.
Someone else already pointed out that the fifth amendment doesn't apply in war time situations, so I'll leave that aside. But you're basically saying we can't ever go to war with anyone, but we have to send the FBI to arrest them. So no D-Day, instead, serve Hitler a subpoena. That's just...wow.
9/11 occured because the current president dropped the ball, not because clinton did.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha!! That was great!
Oh, you were serious.
Go read the 9/11 Commission Report, there's plenty of blame to go around. But at least Bush did something about it, Clinton just ignored it and hoped it would all go away so he could back to chasing interns.
Given the government has suspended habeus [sic] corpus
That's a lie, habeas corpus was not suspended. It was just clarified that non-citizen enemy combatants do not enjoy that right. Unless you want Osama to have access to an attorney?
After the first attack on the WTT, there were no more attacks on American soil.
Except for Oklahoma City (not al Qaeda, but still a large terrorist attack).
Oh, and our embassies (an embassy is considered the soil of the country it represents).
Oh, and the USS Cole (ditto).
Oh, and 9/11 itself.
And those were all done without the Patriot Act. Which ones have occurred since then, and outside of war zones? And have other countries, without the Patriot Act, been attacked by terrorists since its passage (I ask to point out that terrorists are still active, so there must be some reason why they haven't attacked the US when they have attacked Bali, Spain, and the UK).
Really? So your employer will let you take a potentially indefinite leave of absence to go sit on a jury? And you'll still get to collect a salary the whole time? That doesn't sound like a salaried job, that sounds like a civil service one. In France.
lack of gravitational pull??
on
The Sun Had Sisters
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So the claim is that hundreds, maybe thousands, of sun-like stars were in close proximity to each other, but they didn't generate enough gravity to stay in the same neighborhood? How does that make any kind of sense?
Fair enough, though what you and the ACLU are forgetting is we are talking about people who were:
1) Captured on a battlefield
2) During a war
3) And were not abiding by the Geneva Convention
Not at all! We are talking about people who are "designated enemy combatants". They may have been captured anywhere, at any time, and may not have committed any crime at all, let alone war crimes.
They're designated as "enemy combatants" because they where: 1) Captured on a battlefield 2) During a war
These particular ones also were not abiding by the Geneva convention, eg not wearing uniforms.
I just don't understand how you can keep missing this important point: only only only if you are captured on a battlefield does this apply. That is 100% true, always always always. If you think I'm wrong, I suggest you seriously consider what the definition of "battlefield" is in this context, then realize I'm right.
As a foreign national living in the USA, it obviously concerns me a lot more than your average slashdotter, but the language of who this bill affects is sufficiently vague as to probably include US citizens as well.
Two points: as long as you don't take part in acts of agression against our country, you're safe. If you're planning on taking part in those things, please leave, and quit bitching about your "rights".
Second, the bill doesn't trump the Constitution, it just points out that foreign enemies don't get the benefit of the Constitution. Nothing in it applies to American citizens, unless they first renounce their citizenship and take up arms against the country.
This isn't the end of the world, not by a long shot. Quit being such a cry-baby.
The right of "habeus corpus" is the fundamental right of a prisoner to demand a *fair* review of why he is a captive.
Fair enough, though what you and the ACLU are forgetting is we are talking about people who were:
1) Captured on a battlefield 2) During a war 3) And were not abiding by the Geneva Convention
If they don't know why they were captured, they have far more problems than just "losing" habeus corpus.
Out of curiousity, would you have been in favor of German soldiers suing the US government for being unfairly captured without habeas during WWII? If not, why not? Why is that any different from capturing jihadis?
...if you consider that the WTC attacks were a one-time event...
And yet in that one moment, they still managed to kill as many people as would've died in car wrecks over the course of roughly 1/5th of a year, using the same numbers provided above....
No argument there. The security in airports is only so much sound and fury. Though they haven't had a repeat of 9/11 yet, so it mustn't be completely useless, just almost useless.
And one of those #7's is a "A PhD means something". Apparently, even an elementary education doesn't mean anything, if you don't need to be able to count to ten properly to be successful!
Slashdot Mirror
And the Neanderthals got their big brain from Homo Erectus who traded a mule for it.
Oddly enough, they got the mule by trading a red paperclip for it.
Lose Cheney...
Pelosi is going to be two heartbeats away from the Oval Office, do you really want to make it one?
Think about it, a new vice president would have to be approved by the Senate. If MT and/or VA goes to the Dems, there's no way they would approve anyone, they'd just sit on their hands like they're going to with judges.
This blithe "This is how war really is. People die." just stuns me
Are you saying people don't die in war?
I am a Marine enlisted infantry veteran.
Uh-huh. You sound like a coward, not a Marine. And yes I would say that to your face if you were in front of me.
I'm former Navy, so was my grandfather (petty officer in WW2), father (retired Chief), brother-in-law, and older brother, the last two of whom are still in (one's a Commander, the other's a Captain). All of us agree, you don't win a war by making nice-nice with the enemy, you do it by killing the enemy.
Go watch Patton sometime, and understand how a real warrior approaches war. Not this chickenshit "let's all be friends" crap we've been doing in Iraq.
That's not how I read it. It seems to me more like each signing statement is a reminder to Congress that they can pass laws, but it's up to the executive branch to enforce them. Kind of like Jackson's famous response to the Supreme Court's decision on relocating the Cherokees: "It's Mr. Marshall's law, let him enforce it."
And each signing statement only affects the executive branch, not anyone else. So it really is about telling Congress to stuff it and not tell the executive how to do his job. Now if only we'd get a President who would do the same thing to the Supreme Court, we might get some more balance in our government.
Yeah, cause it's nearly impossible for deaf people to navigate a website...
the question was "why is it bad in the first place"...Yes, its a problem if people, even on break, are viewing porn in the office
Wait, I'm confused. Either you automatically buy into porn == 'bad', or you don't. Which side of the fence are you sitting on, Senator?
Maybe all complex life eventually develops their version of Myspace?
Have you seen Myspace? Doesn't seem all the complex to me.
Yes, of course, because any attempt by Clinton to do anything about it was simply "wagging the dog", correct?
100% incorrect. It's because the man literally did almost nothing for eight long years. He lobbed a few cruise missiles in '98, which was a good idea in theory even if the actual implementation sucked (I was never one who questioned the timing of the strikes, I recognized then and now that you can't control when targets of opportunity come up, and you can't ignore them because you're in the middle of something else). But other than that, his administration failed to do anything substantive in combating global terror. For eight long years, twelve times as long as Bush was in office before 9/11.
While you're throwing blame around, do be sure to note that Bush likewise ignored the threat for the first 8 months of his office.
Like I said:
"Go read the 9/11 Commission Report, there's plenty of blame to go around. But at least Bush did something about it, Clinton just ignored it and hoped it would all go away so he could back to chasing interns."
But I know, Bush is horrible because he didn't do enough in eight months. But Clinton is a saint because he did nothing for eight years.
Wow. Just, wow.
Someone else already pointed out that the fifth amendment doesn't apply in war time situations, so I'll leave that aside. But you're basically saying we can't ever go to war with anyone, but we have to send the FBI to arrest them. So no D-Day, instead, serve Hitler a subpoena. That's just...wow.
9/11 occured because the current president dropped the ball, not because clinton did.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha!! That was great!
Oh, you were serious.
Go read the 9/11 Commission Report, there's plenty of blame to go around. But at least Bush did something about it, Clinton just ignored it and hoped it would all go away so he could back to chasing interns.
I should've qualified further: Your employer will let you take an indefinite leave of absence with pay...?
Given the government has suspended habeus [sic] corpus
That's a lie, habeas corpus was not suspended. It was just clarified that non-citizen enemy combatants do not enjoy that right. Unless you want Osama to have access to an attorney?
If Democrats get some control back in congress and/or the senate, we'll start seeing more of what our country was founded on: compromise.
Really? I thought our country was founded on revolution. Silly me.
After the first attack on the WTT, there were no more attacks on American soil.
Except for Oklahoma City (not al Qaeda, but still a large terrorist attack).
Oh, and our embassies (an embassy is considered the soil of the country it represents).
Oh, and the USS Cole (ditto).
Oh, and 9/11 itself.
And those were all done without the Patriot Act. Which ones have occurred since then, and outside of war zones? And have other countries, without the Patriot Act, been attacked by terrorists since its passage (I ask to point out that terrorists are still active, so there must be some reason why they haven't attacked the US when they have attacked Bali, Spain, and the UK).
Really? So your employer will let you take a potentially indefinite leave of absence to go sit on a jury? And you'll still get to collect a salary the whole time? That doesn't sound like a salaried job, that sounds like a civil service one. In France.
So the claim is that hundreds, maybe thousands, of sun-like stars were in close proximity to each other, but they didn't generate enough gravity to stay in the same neighborhood? How does that make any kind of sense?
Fair enough, though what you and the ACLU are forgetting is we are talking about people who were:
1) Captured on a battlefield
2) During a war
3) And were not abiding by the Geneva Convention
Not at all! We are talking about people who are "designated enemy combatants". They may have been captured anywhere, at any time, and may not have committed any crime at all, let alone war crimes.
They're designated as "enemy combatants" because they where:
1) Captured on a battlefield
2) During a war
These particular ones also were not abiding by the Geneva convention, eg not wearing uniforms.
I just don't understand how you can keep missing this important point: only only only if you are captured on a battlefield does this apply. That is 100% true, always always always. If you think I'm wrong, I suggest you seriously consider what the definition of "battlefield" is in this context, then realize I'm right.
As a foreign national living in the USA, it obviously concerns me a lot more than your average slashdotter, but the language of who this bill affects is sufficiently vague as to probably include US citizens as well.
Two points: as long as you don't take part in acts of agression against our country, you're safe. If you're planning on taking part in those things, please leave, and quit bitching about your "rights".
Second, the bill doesn't trump the Constitution, it just points out that foreign enemies don't get the benefit of the Constitution. Nothing in it applies to American citizens, unless they first renounce their citizenship and take up arms against the country.
This isn't the end of the world, not by a long shot. Quit being such a cry-baby.
The right of "habeus corpus" is the fundamental right of a prisoner to demand a *fair* review of why he is a captive.
Fair enough, though what you and the ACLU are forgetting is we are talking about people who were:
1) Captured on a battlefield
2) During a war
3) And were not abiding by the Geneva Convention
If they don't know why they were captured, they have far more problems than just "losing" habeus corpus.
Out of curiousity, would you have been in favor of German soldiers suing the US government for being unfairly captured without habeas during WWII? If not, why not? Why is that any different from capturing jihadis?
We use it at a far greater rate than it's being generated.
If that were even remotely true, we would have no reserves whatsoever. Also, gas prices wouldn't have dropped through the floor in the last few weeks.
By the time we start to seriously run low on oil, we'll be able to send robot ships to Titan and start bleeding it dry, instead.
...if you consider that the WTC attacks were a one-time event...
And yet in that one moment, they still managed to kill as many people as would've died in car wrecks over the course of roughly 1/5th of a year, using the same numbers provided above....
If war crimes are actually being committed, then the UN should step in, defuse the situation, and bring those who committed said crimes to trial.
You mean like they did in Rwanda and Lebanon?
No argument there. The security in airports is only so much sound and fury. Though they haven't had a repeat of 9/11 yet, so it mustn't be completely useless, just almost useless.
And one of those #7's is a "A PhD means something". Apparently, even an elementary education doesn't mean anything, if you don't need to be able to count to ten properly to be successful!