Thread: bye, George

Originally Posted by Zaragrunudgeyon

No, that doesn't make any sense.

Oh yea, Aus is right on here. It may not be a true reflection of you or I, but collectively as a whole it is a reflection of our country.

GWB used to be articulate, as well. Check out the footage of him running for governor in the mid-90's. It's downright scary.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

You proved no such thing.

Just read what you quoted yourself. Where does it ever put the jurisdiction of enemy combatants (i.e. terrorists) under the authority of the Judicial Branch?

Then, when you have arrived at the obvious answer to that question, look at the powers of the Legislative Branch that you cited. You correctly asserted that Congress has the power to make laws and regulations concerning captured men, and I have listed time and again the authorization that Bush received from Congress to hold detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

With that said, I will not repeat myself again. Beyond this point, I would have to conclude that you're in a state of denial, as your hatred for Bush is seemingly too deep-rooted for you to admit that Bush has little if any fault here.

I can tell you're not a lawyer. That's okay, neither am I. But, I know this much: according to the Supreme Court, international law, IS admiralty law. It falls under Admiralty Jurisdiction. Ask any lawyer. Strange, but true.

Yes, the Supreme Court is explicitly given power in cases of international dispute on the high seas. That is EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Constitution and a lawyer is not needed to clarify that.

The two words however, are not interchangable, and though admiralty and maritime cases do often involve international law, they are not international law in general.

If your interpretation were true, then Madison would have simply wrote "jurisdiction over maritime and admiralty disputes" instead of specifically spelling out all the powers the Supreme Court has in regard to international law and foreign affairs.

Yeah. It was the OTHER part I was asking about, the part about the "shield of foreign citizenship", or whatever...

As a foreign "citizen", you are guaranteed the basic rights that Americans enjoy according to the 14th Amendment and the Judicial Branch would in fact have jurisdiction over any disputes you may have.

However, Bush has the power according to the case Hamadi v. Rumsfeld, to declare a foreigner as an enemy combatant, who is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment as sharing the basic rights of Americans and is not mentioned as being under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Justice system.

Therefore, the "shield of foreign citizenship" is not given to enemy combatants.

The United States has actually EXECUTED someone for waterboarding an American soldier.

I don't doubt it. It's just that when a news reporter asks if he can be waterboarded by someone and emerges from it just fine, I find it hard to believe that waterboarding is torture.

Is it unpleasant? Yes. But is it thumbscrews, electrodes, and other cruel torture techniques? Absolutely not.

On a side note, I'm assuming your silence on the Iraq legality question is a concession that the answer I gave is suitable, correct?

Originally Posted by C-101

Just read what you quoted yourself. Where does it ever put the jurisdiction of enemy combatants (i.e. terrorists) under the authority of the Judicial Branch?

Then, when you have arrived at the obvious answer to that question, look at the powers of the Legislative Branch that you cited. You correctly asserted that Congress has the power to make laws and regulations concerning captured men, and I have listed time and again the authorization that Bush received from Congress to hold detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

With that said, I will not repeat myself again. Beyond this point, I would have to conclude that you're in a state of denial, as your hatred for Bush is seemingly too deep-rooted for you to admit that Bush has little if any fault here.



Yes, the Supreme Court is explicitly given power in cases of international dispute on the high seas. That is EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Constitution and a lawyer is not needed to clarify that.

The two words however, are not interchangable, and though admiralty and maritime cases do often involve international law, they are not international law in general.

If your interpretation were true, then Madison would have simply wrote "jurisdiction over maritime and admiralty disputes" instead of specifically spelling out all the powers the Supreme Court has in regard to international law and foreign affairs.



As a foreign "citizen", you are guaranteed the basic rights that Americans enjoy according to the 14th Amendment and the Judicial Branch would in fact have jurisdiction over any disputes you may have.

However, Bush has the power according to the case Hamadi v. Rumsfeld, to declare a foreigner as an enemy combatant, who is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment as sharing the basic rights of Americans and is not mentioned as being under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Justice system.

Therefore, the "shield of foreign citizenship" is not given to enemy combatants.

I don't doubt it. It's just that when a news reporter asks if he can be waterboarded by someone and emerges from it just fine, I find it hard to believe that waterboarding is torture.

Is it unpleasant? Yes. But is it thumbscrews, electrodes, and other cruel torture techniques? Absolutely not.

On a side note, I'm assuming your silence on the Iraq legality question is a concession that the answer I gave is suitable, correct?

Iraq? All THAT? You're makin' this way too complicated. Look - the United States of America, abides by a "code". The LAW, they call it. Part of that law, is international treaties that have been ratified by Congress. It has the Force of Law, those things. So, that is why, there are "rules" for how prisones are treated.

Crap like this.... what did you call it? blurb-blurb combatant? what was it?

Dude.... WTF is that? WTF is a non-uniformed combatant? BLACKWATER? That's one, right? That is definitely, most certainly, a non-uniformed combatant. Right?

Or what was it you said - "foreign" combatant? So, this is very strange now - the President, on his say-so, not even being in the field of battle himself, but receiving only "filtered" reports from his generals, gets to decide at a PERSONAL level who has Rights and who doesn't?

And then he's gonna complain, when someone ELSE does that to OUR boys, right?

Pal, someone's sellin' you a bill o' goods. Really. All these details about the "legality" of Iraq - meh... you know, my take on all that stuff is, let the lawyers sort it out. It's too much energy to argue about it all AGAIN. Really. I've done this SO many times, and I mean, .... if you wanna consider that you've won, that's fine. I've just been off priming my 'bots, so I'm about ready to send off LOTS of e-mails to LOTS of places, about politics and such, and then I'm workin' other channels too, even as we speak, so....

Obama said he was going to investigate, and that's good enough for me. They'll figure it out. My only interest, is that the investigation occur. I don't claim to be the expert on anything.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Now that we've rail-roaded the scumbag Bush out of office, in what amounts to political tar and feathers, I thought I would REMIND all of you, why we did it.

HERE is why we did it:



This is a RECENT picture, yes?

This is George W Bush, WHILE he was President of the United States.

CARRYING a flag - INCORRECTLY I might add - and FLIPPING OFF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

THAT is what George W Bush represents. He stands for FLIPPING OFF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

He's been doin' this type of thing to his constituents, for a LONG time. I have a similar picture of him, WHILE he was Governor of Texas, flipping off a Texan on live television.

This kind of thing, makes a MOCKERY of the concept of "representative government".

And I STILL want to know, why conservatives stood up for this idiot, for so long.

This picture above, should show you what I've been telling y'all for a LONG time now - the man is a MENACE to the People of the United States.

God Bless America, and let's hope our new guy, is a LOT better than the old guy.

The new guy is just like BUSH! We are being hosed

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley


Author of Tragedy and Hope (tragedy is all the people who must suffer and die for the NWO, and the hope is the NEW WORLD ORDER )
Professor Quigley was a Globalist, he supported the idea NEW WORLD ORDER and wrote about it, he, unlike the elites, thought the people should know about it.
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups." Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University
"The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ... [and] ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." Dr. Carroll Quigley
"I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
"As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley."President Clinton, in his acceptance speech for the Democratic Party's nomination for president, 16 July 1992
http://www.bilderberg.org/bis.htm Carrol Quigley quote - the bankers' plan

The new guy is just like BUSH! We are being hosed

...Obama? Are we in the same country? Is this the same Obama we're talking about?

What?!

Originally Posted by Bones

...Obama? Are we in the same country? Is this the same Obama we're talking about?

What?!

YES! Both sides are controlled by one.
We pick from those who are picked for us by the internationalists. The only ones they pick for us to chose from; support the internationalists interests. So they win everytime and we lose everytime.

Notice nothing ever changes, and the same polices of the past president is picked up by the new one.

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

Carroll Quigley

Originally Posted by Robodoon

YES! Both sides are controlled by one.
We pick from those who are picked for us by the internationalists. The only ones they pick for us to chose from; support the internationalists interests. So they win everytime and we lose everytime.

Notice nothing ever changes, and the same polices of the past president is picked up by the new one.

Carroll Quigley

I don't recall any other President ever ordering torture as an instrument of US policy.

And, if we're talking about reps-n-dems, what about all this regulation (not) stuff that's comin' down right now?

Nah, I think there are BIG differences in play here.

Yes, there is some commonality. There is certainly an element of truth in what you're saying.

But, I have no reason to suspect that any of these people have "undue influence", except in a general sense. People like Abramoff, they get BUSTED, is what usually happens to 'em....

Busting someone, is the same thing as the way the cops treat crack addicts, OR, the way the FBI treats white collar criminals. It's like, if you don't appear on their radar screen in the first place, they're not gonna come after you. But if you're doin' something "that" bad, to where you appear on their radar screen, then it's a PROBLEM, 'cause now they got their attention focused on you. So now they're gonna pick apart EVERY little detail in your life, and chances are GOOD they're gonna be able to construct some fantastic version of reality around that.

So, torture, that's "bustable", right? That's big enough, so it appears on the radar screen, and once it does, peoples' attention gets focused on it, and then things happen.

Everyone has to dance with the elephant, as you say. I'm quite sure that occurs. But, "internationalists"? Hm... did you read my little bit about what BushCo is tryin' to do to the Swiss right now? That's hardly the behavior I'd expect out of "internationalists", right?