"Students who participate in extracurricular activities that require higher standards of conduct, such as cheerleading, band, and athletics, may face consequences for publishing inappropriate web photos or information that identify their role in the school."
I guess the next paragraph got edited out:
"Conversely, we hope that our embarassing students, like those dorks in the Chess Club and all those stoners that hang out by the drainpipe out behind the gym go ahead and publish their personal data, get abducted, and sold into slavery. That way, there will be more resources available for the students with McNeil High Buttpirates Spirit!"
Ugh. I thought the ID tags and transparent backpacks were bad. This is just...unbelievable.
I went to Plano Senior High, and I'm very glad that I got out before high school turned into a low-grade internment camp. It was bad enough when all we had to worry about was getting Teen Suicided or offered heroin.
Can't record two shows without two Tivos, and two subscriptions. That's a bad deal.
I wouldn't use Windows, but not counting on Tivo is worth some set-up hassle in my mind. Right now, Tivo works well enough, and the hardware would be expensive enough for me, that I'm not ready to jump.
I don't understand what your point has to do with the issue at hand.
When people labeled as "terrorists" are denied due process, every person's rights are lessened. Why is that acceptable?
I'm not arguing whether the detainees are guilty or not: That's for a court. I DO know that playing this shell game of calling them "detainees" gives the Administration carte blanche to lock up anybody who they tag as a "terrorist".
I'm not saying that we shouldn't take action against terrorists: On the contrary, I think that taking action against terrorists is a pretty good idea. I DO think, however, that the administration is being a bit indiscriminate with that label.
Of course, I must hate freedom because I disagree with the administration, so take this with a grain of salt...
The Fifth Amendment says "No person". Not "No citizen". Now, you could make all sorts of arguments about whether some of these clauses: "unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;"
obtain to foreign combatants. Whether they do or not, I think that as a matter of principle, ALL detainees should be provided with speedy trials to ascertain their status.
"French Constitution does explicitly exclude non-citizens from most Constitutional rights. Why is no one up in arms over that?"
I'm not up in arms about it, because I'm not French, and I'm not protected by the French constitution. What possible relevance does this have to the discussion at hand?
"4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, regardless of his citizenship."
I'm not arguing what the courts have found. I'm arguing what the Constitution SAYS.
You're operating from a fundamental misconception. Don't worry, it seems like the overwhelming majority of lawyers and citizens of the United States are operating under the same misconception.
The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution prevents the United States Government from infringing on rights. The rights already exist, they are not granted by any temporal authority. (see "Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights")
That's my point, and the one people argue about the status of the detainees seem to miss. I think it's a pretty simple one, but I'm a pretty simple guy.
"a military tribunal is not a violation of due process" You say that. Abraham Lincoln might have said that. I happen to disagree. I'm pretty sure I'm still allowed to do that.
"has even restricted their use to non-US-citizens" Except for ones named Jose Padilla.
How many "detainees" have actually had a military tribunal? How many have been found to be poor schlocks in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Denying representation and speedy trial to ANYBODY is a Bad Idea. I don't care WHAT they're accused of: If the government can't make the case, they should be freed.
So, in other words, there's no Constitutional basis whatsoever for the abridgement of due process. I also looked for the word "citizen" and "terrorist", and I couldn't find those either.
Call bullshit all you want. I've never in my life been fashionable. Why would I start now? I bought an iPod because it has everything I want in a music player, and a clean, simple interface.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody call the WAAAAAAAHmbulance.
Good thought...I'll be RICH!
Doesn't make it a very clever idea...
In other news, water still wet, fire still hot, and bears DO shit in the woods. Film at 11.
Wow. Reasoning by analogy is way more fun than actual substantive discussion!
This is my favorite part.
"Students who participate in extracurricular activities that require higher standards of conduct, such as cheerleading, band, and athletics, may face consequences for publishing inappropriate web photos or information that identify their role in the school."
I guess the next paragraph got edited out:
"Conversely, we hope that our embarassing students, like those dorks in the Chess Club and all those stoners that hang out by the drainpipe out behind the gym go ahead and publish their personal data, get abducted, and sold into slavery. That way, there will be more resources available for the students with McNeil High Buttpirates Spirit!"
Ugh. I thought the ID tags and transparent backpacks were bad. This is just...unbelievable.
I went to Plano Senior High, and I'm very glad that I got out before high school turned into a low-grade internment camp. It was bad enough when all we had to worry about was getting Teen Suicided or offered heroin.
Then the kid better watch out for their own self...they're obviously smart enough to do so.
Perhaps (now, call me crazy here) you do not agree with the assertion that Zionism is against the principles of Judaism.
Whoa. That was heavy.
(note: I'm neither a Zionist nor a Jew. Just a dude with some, like, rational faculties and stuff.)
Seems like admitting to doing illegal things in public is a pretty silly idea.
Call me nutty.
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Uh huh. Who gets the phone call when the cable box stops working? Like Comcast is gonna help you....
I sure wouldn't want to support everybody else's broke-ass cable box...
Can't record two shows without two Tivos, and two subscriptions. That's a bad deal.
I wouldn't use Windows, but not counting on Tivo is worth some set-up hassle in my mind. Right now, Tivo works well enough, and the hardware would be expensive enough for me, that I'm not ready to jump.
But the day will come when I will...
I'd bet you a nickel that Apple is waiting for Cable Card II, and then they'll proceed to blow everybody else out of the water.
I don't understand what your point has to do with the issue at hand.
When people labeled as "terrorists" are denied due process, every person's rights are lessened. Why is that acceptable?
I'm not arguing whether the detainees are guilty or not: That's for a court. I DO know that playing this shell game of calling them "detainees" gives the Administration carte blanche to lock up anybody who they tag as a "terrorist".
I'm not saying that we shouldn't take action against terrorists: On the contrary, I think that taking action against terrorists is a pretty good idea. I DO think, however, that the administration is being a bit indiscriminate with that label.
Of course, I must hate freedom because I disagree with the administration, so take this with a grain of salt...
Why do you think it's funny that the only thing between you and indefinite detention is somebody deciding that you're a terrorist?
The Fifth Amendment says "No person". Not "No citizen". Now, you could make all sorts of arguments about whether some of these clauses: "unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;"
obtain to foreign combatants. Whether they do or not, I think that as a matter of principle, ALL detainees should be provided with speedy trials to ascertain their status.
"French Constitution does explicitly exclude non-citizens from most Constitutional rights. Why is no one up in arms over that?"
I'm not up in arms about it, because I'm not French, and I'm not protected by the French constitution. What possible relevance does this have to the discussion at hand?
"4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, regardless of his citizenship."
I'm not arguing what the courts have found. I'm arguing what the Constitution SAYS.
You're operating from a fundamental misconception. Don't worry, it seems like the overwhelming majority of lawyers and citizens of the United States are operating under the same misconception.
The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution prevents the United States Government from infringing on rights. The rights already exist, they are not granted by any temporal authority. (see "Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights")
That's my point, and the one people argue about the status of the detainees seem to miss. I think it's a pretty simple one, but I'm a pretty simple guy.
"a military tribunal is not a violation of due process" You say that. Abraham Lincoln might have said that. I happen to disagree. I'm pretty sure I'm still allowed to do that.
"has even restricted their use to non-US-citizens" Except for ones named Jose Padilla.
How many "detainees" have actually had a military tribunal? How many have been found to be poor schlocks in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Denying representation and speedy trial to ANYBODY is a Bad Idea. I don't care WHAT they're accused of: If the government can't make the case, they should be freed.
So, in other words, there's no Constitutional basis whatsoever for the abridgement of due process. I also looked for the word "citizen" and "terrorist", and I couldn't find those either.
OK, that's kinda what I thought. Thank you!
Just out of curiosity, could you please show me in the Constitution where the due process provisions only apply to citizens of the United States?
"Remember, when the government wants something done, it finds a way"
Wow. What government are YOU talking about? MINE fucks everything into a cocked hat with unintended consequences...
"It really gets me mad, when people set their tiny monitors to some really small resolution"
You need to take a really deep breath, and worry less about what other people do. You'll live longer.
Call bullshit all you want. I've never in my life been fashionable. Why would I start now? I bought an iPod because it has everything I want in a music player, and a clean, simple interface.
Again: Fashion is irrelevant.