Hamdi

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » September 16, 2004, 11:39 am

Metanis wrote:The Constitution of the USA is a pretty amazing document. It's one helluva pact for social justice and it's served our country and it's citizens well and I'm sure it will continue to serve for centuries to come.

However there are 2 points that need to be made.

1. It's not sacred.

2. The terrorists we are fighting would be glad to roll up the constitution and shove it so far up your ass your head explodes.

===

Regarding note #1. Since most of you libs also seem to be aethists or at least borderline agnostic, I think you are conferring some form of deity worship on the US Constitution.

I think the Constitution is a really great thing, but it pales in significance next to the Bible.

So, let me paraphrase to see if I understand this correctly:

* You associate conservative political views quite strongly with fundamental Christianity.

* You probably feel the Bible is "the word of God" and don't see it as parable but a tool to justify any action you take.

* Not only is anyone that doesn't agree with your extreme right wing views a "lib", but they are a Godless heathen with no beliefs.

* You'd favor setting aside the Constitution in favour of the Bible when it comes to the governance of the USA.

This behaviour is typical of most if not all of the fundies on VV and actually most of the bible thumpers I know in RL too. Keep up the great work maintaining that stereotype, and don't let that hatred for your fellow man (who disagrees politely with some of your admittedly extreme views) keep you from righteousness.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 16, 2004, 11:50 am

I have no idea where you are going with your second point. It doesn't matter one iota what "level" terrorist he is. He was an enemy combatant and was detained.

I see where he is going with it. I do find it pretty amusing that while he was being held, he was so dangerous he had to be kept in solitary confinement.. then when courts order him released he is suddenly not that big of a deal anyway. Once again the administration comes across as a pouty little child who didn't really get things it's way and goes "I didn't want to play with you anyway!"

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 16, 2004, 11:58 am

I can see that in a public relations kind of way.....but in the overall scheme of things, did it really matter if they thought he was a big terrorist or a little terrorist?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 16, 2004, 12:05 pm

I'd just like to point out that "enemy combatant" is a phrase made up by this administration (as are all powers pertaining thereto), with the express purpose of NOT calling these people PoWs and conferring on them the rights of PoWs under the Geneva Convention.

Also, rules applied unevenly are not rules. If the rules stated this guy should have had representation then he should've got it, been charged and treated accordingly. The fact that this didn't happen for no explicable reason is the problem here. How much he "deserved it" is not the issue.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » September 16, 2004, 12:11 pm

Was his citizenship revoked?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 16, 2004, 12:28 pm

If you conservatives had any fucking sense, this should piss you off. Here's why:

There are two options. Either:
1. He was a terrorist or
2. He was not a terrorist.

If option 2 is correct, then we held an innocent US citizen in detention for years without providing him access to the civil rights which every American citizen is guaranteed.

If option 1 is correct, we released a terrorist without ever prosecuting him, convicting him of a crime, or taking any action whatsoever to prevent him from committing terrorism in the future.

How can you possibly argue that either one of these is an acceptable option?

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 16, 2004, 12:30 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:I'd just like to point out that "enemy combatant" is a phrase made up by this administration (as are all powers pertaining thereto), with the express purpose of NOT calling these people PoWs and conferring on them the rights of PoWs under the Geneva Convention.

Also, rules applied unevenly are not rules. If the rules stated this guy should have had representation then he should've got it, been charged and treated accordingly. The fact that this didn't happen for no explicable reason is the problem here. How much he "deserved it" is not the issue.

The phrase was coined by the U.S. The rights conferred were not made up by the U.S., but by the Geneva Convention.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I won't post that here but you can read it for yourself. It seems some of you are struggling to understand the exact rules laid out by it. Kelshara sure as hell would not have ceased his argument with me if I was wrong in this case.

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 16, 2004, 12:32 pm

Sueven....I am more irritated that we did not use put him on trial. I think the U.S. government screwed up there...and I would bet heads are rolling over it. All they had to do was put him at GB, Cuba and the entire issue would have been moot.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 16, 2004, 12:34 pm

Tenuvil I think you missed MY point. I am a liberal, I'm trying to get the it through the thick skull of these neocons that keeping him without a trial is fascist.

Marb

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 16, 2004, 12:45 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote:I'd just like to point out that "enemy combatant" is a phrase made up by this administration (as are all powers pertaining thereto), with the express purpose of NOT calling these people PoWs and conferring on them the rights of PoWs under the Geneva Convention.

Also, rules applied unevenly are not rules. If the rules stated this guy should have had representation then he should've got it, been charged and treated accordingly. The fact that this didn't happen for no explicable reason is the problem here. How much he "deserved it" is not the issue.
The phrase was coined by the U.S. The rights conferred were not made up by the U.S., but by the Geneva Convention.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I won't post that here but you can read it for yourself. It seems some of you are struggling to understand the exact rules laid out by it. Kelshara sure as hell would not have ceased his argument with me if I was wrong in this case.

Be nice if you could refer to the article that you feel applies.

I'm not even sure if the invasion of Afghanistan could be considered a war from what I did read there, and I was under the impression that the US hadn't been involved in a declared war since Vietnam, so how does PoW come about?

I know all about "the War on Terror", but you also have "the War on Drugs" and I don't see any military tribunals for that.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 16, 2004, 12:47 pm

Even traitors deserve their due process.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 16, 2004, 12:53 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:Was his citizenship revoked?

He's having to give it up now as part of his release, as of this moment he is still a US citizen

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » September 16, 2004, 12:54 pm

Marbus wrote:Tenuvil I think you missed MY point. I am a liberal, I'm trying to get the it through the thick skull of these neocons that keeping him without a trial is fascist.

Marb

Got your point fully and was agreeing with you Marb

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » September 16, 2004, 12:55 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Be nice if you could refer to the article that you feel applies.

I think he's referring to Article 4.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 16, 2004, 1:02 pm

One more point for Tanc's statement.....this guy was a U.S. citizen and there was no international law that needed to be used in his case. Only U.S. laws even needed to be looked at.

Will post relevant Geneva Convention laws in a bit.

Edit:

Focus on Article 4, section 6 and Article 5. Article 118 would also be a good read for those who have failed to understand how long someone can be detained.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 16, 2004, 1:12 pm

The phrase was coined by the U.S. The rights conferred were not made up by the U.S., but by the Geneva Convention

Fair enough then. I'm not going to continue arguing if it's a point of US law. I'll leave that to the experts

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 16, 2004, 1:19 pm

LOL! As you can see from my posts last night I didn't get a lot of sleep trying to put together a network security plan... sorry man

Marb

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 16, 2004, 1:37 pm

As an "enemy combatant" and a U.S. citizen wouldn't this part of the article posted by Kilmoll apply to him?

U.S. citizen enemy combatants who are detained in the United States may challenge their detention by a petition for habeas corpus. In the view of the U.S. government, enemy combatants have no right to counsel to challenge their detention. Providing enemy combatants a right of access to counsel could thwart our ability to collect critical information and could imperil efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks. It might also enable detained enemy combatants to pass concealed messages to the enemy.

In Padilla v. Bush, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23086 (S.D.N.Y. December 4, 2002), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently upheld the government's ability to detain U.S. citizen enemy combatants in the United States but required the government to provide access to Padilla by his attorneys for limited purposes. We are currently reviewing the court's decision.

The question then becomes who decides on his petition? It would stand to reason that as a citizen of the U.S. the rules of due process would apply even in this instance since the article does not strip them of their constitutional rights. The court in Padilla v. Bush states that a citizen "enemy combatant" must be given access to their attorneys which would tend to point to the fact that they are still entitled to due process. It would stand to reason that Hamdi should have been provided with counsel at that time as well if he shared the same status as Padilla, which I believe he did as a citizen "enemy combatant".

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 16, 2004, 1:58 pm

I think my view is very easily summarized:
- I am against anyone being held without proper procedure followed, wether it is Saddam Hussein, a terrorist, a detainee on Cuba or a local grocery store clerk caught stealing.
- Imho the people captured should have PoW status.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 16, 2004, 7:10 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:He was not "in jail". He was being held as a prisoner of war.

You can't declare war on a concept and then start imprisoning people and calling them POWs.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 16, 2004, 9:09 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:He was not "in jail". He was being held as a prisoner of war.
You can't declare war on a concept and then start imprisoning people and calling them POWs.

Yaser Esam Hamdi, center, was captured alongside pro-Taliban forces in northern Afghanistan in 2001 and taken to the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Terry Richards -- AP)

Hamdi was captured alongside pro-Taliban forces on the battlefield in northern Afghanistan in November 2001 and taken to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There he told investigators that he was born in Louisiana to Saudi parents. He subsequently spent most of his life in Saudi Arabia, but his family said he never renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Looks like an innocent US Citizen to me.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 16, 2004, 9:33 pm

Does your reply have anything at all to do with my post in the universe you live in?

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » September 16, 2004, 9:47 pm

so any mideastern looking male is a bad guy now? what the fuck goes though your head.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 16, 2004, 10:18 pm

Raistin wrote:so any mideastern looking male is a bad guy now? what the fuck goes though your head.

Nope. But, let us not try and pretend he is a real US Citizen. Technically he is, because of our fucked up laws giving anyone born here US Citizenship. But, that needs to be changed.

He was born here, then left at the ripe age of 3 years old. Was caught fighting along side the enemy. He is no American.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 16, 2004, 10:20 pm

kyoukan wrote:Does your reply have anything at all to do with my post in the universe you live in?

Call your Mom and Dad over. Maybe they can explain it to you.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 16, 2004, 10:40 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Raistin wrote:so any mideastern looking male is a bad guy now? what the fuck goes though your head.
Nope. But, let us not try and pretend he is a real US Citizen. Technically he is, because of our fucked up laws giving anyone born here US Citizenship. But, that needs to be changed.

He was born here, then left at the ripe age of 3 years old. Was caught fighting along side the enemy. He is no American.

Please tell me you did not mean that?

In the magical world of midnyte how would you go about aquiring a US citizenship, bash liberals and hate muslims?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 16, 2004, 10:44 pm

If he is an American then I feel he is a traitor and should have been hung or shot.

If he is not an American, then he should be turned over to the country of his citizenship IAW etradition agreements.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 16, 2004, 10:46 pm

Midnyte has been watching Starship Troopers lately. Military Service GUARANTEES citizenship!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 16, 2004, 11:03 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:One more point for Tanc's statement.....this guy was a U.S. citizen and there was no international law that needed to be used in his case. Only U.S. laws even needed to be looked at.

Will post relevant Geneva Convention laws in a bit.

Edit:

Focus on Article 4, section 6 and Article 5. Article 118 would also be a good read for those who have failed to understand how long someone can be detained.

OK, but where's the war? Article 4 refers to "Prisoners of War", is any armed conflict between a soverign nation and "any other group" a war?

For example, do you think the geneva convention and the rules of war apply in "The War on Drugs"?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 16, 2004, 11:08 pm

Kylere wrote:If he is an American then I feel he is a traitor and should have been hung or shot.

If he is not an American, then he should be turned over to the country of his citizenship IAW etradition agreements.

damn, your solution to all crime is to hang and/or shoot people!

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » September 17, 2004, 1:29 am

Metanis wrote:You would all be fiddling while Rome burned around you.

Actually, we're the ones pointing out the corruption at the top of the Empire which is making us vulnerable to those northern barbarians.

You're the one blindly supporting Nero because he's God-made-flesh and because all naysayers are heretics.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 17, 2004, 1:32 am

Xzion wrote:
Kylere wrote:If he is an American then I feel he is a traitor and should have been hung or shot.

If he is not an American, then he should be turned over to the country of his citizenship IAW etradition agreements.
damn, your solution to all crime is to hang and/or shoot people!

I feel that treason justifies it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 17, 2004, 1:55 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
kyoukan wrote:Does your reply have anything at all to do with my post in the universe you live in?
Call your Mom and Dad over. Maybe they can explain it to you.

I'd rather you do it because I don't see how your reply corresponds with what I wrote at all. It looked to me more like it was another cheap deflection because you debate like old people fuck. So please clarify.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » September 17, 2004, 9:20 am

kyoukan wrote:you debate like old people fuck.

Slow and sloppy? I have gotten so much mileage out of that joke it's just amazing. Thank you, George Carlin.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 17, 2004, 10:17 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I guess they should have put Hamdi on trial and when he was found guilty, he could have gotten it too. That would be civil rights at its best for you.

Exactly.

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 17, 2004, 10:18 am

Zaelath wrote:OK, but where's the war? Article 4 refers to "Prisoners of War", is any armed conflict between a soverign nation and "any other group" a war?

For example, do you think the geneva convention and the rules of war apply in "The War on Drugs"?

You are joking right? You don't recognize the Taliban as an organized group of people fighting against the U.S. and the current Afghan goernment?

The "war on drugs" is a slogan. Drugs are not an entity that organize into militia. If they wanted to declare a war on drug cartels.....whole different ballgame there.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 17, 2004, 12:14 pm

I thought the Taliban basically were the government at the time, but was there ever an official delaration of war? I don't recall one, perhaps you can enlighten me...

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 17, 2004, 8:44 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Midnyte has been watching Starship Troopers lately. Military Service GUARANTEES citizenship!

The exact same thing went through my head.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 17, 2004, 8:46 pm

Zaelath wrote:I thought the Taliban basically were the government at the time, but was there ever an official delaration of war? I don't recall one, perhaps you can enlighten me...

They weren't the internationally recognize government of Afghanistan. Some countries recognized them, but the general consensus (ie. the UN) was that they were an illegal government that took control of the country via violence.

edit. That brings up something else I've been meaning to comment on. I love how the weak-minded simpletons were all for the UNs help in taking out the Taliban government, but once the UN refuses to aid in an illegal occupation of Iraq they cry about the UN being a powerless organization. If the UN were to pull out of Afghanistan to leave the US high and dry there you guys would be up shit creek. You couldn't spread your forces between the two countries without fucking yourselves over on both fronts. So kindly sit down and shut the fuck up and remember that you are relying on the UN every single God-blessed-American day.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 17, 2004, 10:36 pm

The UN charter forbids them from militarily removing a government.

None of the gung-ho rednecks want to know that, they want to claim that the UN being for removing the Taliban means they were for removing the Taliban militarily, then moan that they wouldn't send troops until it was time for a peace keeper role.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 18, 2004, 12:34 am

Tenuvil wrote:
Metanis wrote:The Constitution of the USA is a pretty amazing document. It's one helluva pact for social justice and it's served our country and it's citizens well and I'm sure it will continue to serve for centuries to come.

However there are 2 points that need to be made.

1. It's not sacred.

2. The terrorists we are fighting would be glad to roll up the constitution and shove it so far up your ass your head explodes.

===

Regarding note #1. Since most of you libs also seem to be aethists or at least borderline agnostic, I think you are conferring some form of deity worship on the US Constitution.

I think the Constitution is a really great thing, but it pales in significance next to the Bible.
So, let me paraphrase to see if I understand this correctly:

* You associate conservative political views quite strongly with fundamental Christianity.

* You probably feel the Bible is "the word of God" and don't see it as parable but a tool to justify any action you take.

* Not only is anyone that doesn't agree with your extreme right wing views a "lib", but they are a Godless heathen with no beliefs.

* You'd favor setting aside the Constitution in favour of the Bible when it comes to the governance of the USA.

This behaviour is typical of most if not all of the fundies on VV and actually most of the bible thumpers I know in RL too. Keep up the great work maintaining that stereotype, and don't let that hatred for your fellow man (who disagrees politely with some of your admittedly extreme views) keep you from righteousness.

I'll give you points for style. It's nice to see people who care enough about the reader to provide some form of formatting.

You conclusions are tenuous at best. For example you end with "don't let that hatred...", but you don't explain where my supposed hatred comes into play. I never stated anything about hatred. I don't see anything in my original words that would be perceived as "hateful".

I believe the shrinks have a concept of transference. Perhaps you are the hateful one?

As to the rest of your supposed points... hogwash. Your conclusions speak more to your attitudes and beliefs than mine.

Good try... A for Style. D for content.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 18, 2004, 6:10 am

Metanis wrote: However there are 2 points that need to be made.

1. It's not sacred.

I guess that depends on whose point of view you’re looking at. I am sure that from yours it is not as you have clearly stated that, but I am equally sure that for others it is. I am positive that there are many people who have studied the Constitution as much as any theologian has studied the Bible or the Quran. Both documents hold guiding principles that have inspired and lead people to do wondrous and horrific things in its name. Both documents are worthy of veneration in their own rights.

In fact I am sure that there are many Christians who would argue that the writers of the constitution were divinely inspired much as the prophets who wrote the bible were.

Now do I believe this? No, not really, the Constitution however is the most advanced document of democracy. More importantly it's the law that governs this land of ours.

Metanis wrote: 2. The terrorists we are fighting would be glad to roll up the constitution and shove it so far up your ass your head explodes.

I fail to see what this has to do with holding a citizen without due process and violating the Constitution. Are you saying that we should let fear dictate our integrity and commitment to the law? I can not control what terrorist do; I can only control how I react to what they do.

Metanis wrote: Regarding note #1. Since most of you libs also seem to be aethists or at least borderline agnostic, I think you are conferring some form of deity worship on the US Constitution.

I think the Constitution is a really great thing, but it pales in significance next to the Bible.

Again that is your opinion and I respect that because I was taught early on that the only way to get respect for what you believe is to give respect to others and their beliefs even if you do not agree with them. Personally I've always believed that the Bible is a wonderful guide, but in the end you have to find your own path. Faith is found through free will not the foot steps of other.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 18, 2004, 10:27 am

Dregor Thule wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:Midnyte has been watching Starship Troopers lately. Military Service GUARANTEES citizenship!
The exact same thing went through my head.

Then you both have no fucking clue. I don't believe that at all.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 18, 2004, 10:45 am

Metanis wrote: I believe the shrinks have a concept of transference. Perhaps you are the hateful one?

Just a minor derail for clarification...

That would be projection you are thinking of...not transference...transference is a form of projection/intrajection specific to ego-based psychotherapeutic relationships involving deep feelings of "love" for the therapist...

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 18, 2004, 11:37 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:Midnyte has been watching Starship Troopers lately. Military Service GUARANTEES citizenship!
The exact same thing went through my head.
Then you both have no fucking clue. I don't believe that at all.

Okay, so how would you go about granting US citizenship, if those born here are not entitled to it?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 18, 2004, 12:14 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Metanis wrote: I believe the shrinks have a concept of transference. Perhaps you are the hateful one?
Just a minor derail for clarification...

That would be projection you are thinking of...not transference...transference is a form of projection/intrajection specific to ego-based psychotherapeutic relationships involving deep feelings of "love" for the therapist...

Point taken! Thanks.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 18, 2004, 12:14 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Yes...we could have held him for as long as the conflict was going. If that took 20 years...then he could be held for 20 years.

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens,

That's simply not true...those held have recourse to the courts and due process including those in Guantanamo Bay largely...see the 3 relevant cases that the court decided on June 28...

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/

HAMDI, YASER E. ET AL. v. RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE
No. 03-6696. Argued April 28, 2004 -- Decided June 28, 2004

RASUL, SHAFIQ, ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
No. 03-334. Argued April 20, 2004 -- Decided June 28, 2004

RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE v. PADILLA, JOSE, ET AL.
No. 03-1027. Argued April 28, 2004 -- Decided June 28, 2004

He can detain them certainly but not indefinitely, not incommunicado, not without charges and not without them having recourse to due process (which includes the right to a speedy trial)...in fact even non-citizens have recourse to the us courts (see Rasul et al)...Guantanamo Bay did not work to abrogate recourse as Ashcroft intended it to...

So essentially the SC slammed the administration's collective dicks in the drawer...Except in the Padilla case which was really just about jurisdiction for a writ of habeus corpus...but in choosing to hear this case...they acknowledge inherently that he does have recourse to the court system...And made reccomendations to the appropriate court to initially hear said writ...

I'm not sure why you think what you think...but the Supreme Court disagrees quite explicitly...

edit: link added to facilitate perusal of the applicable cases

(PS: if you like watching attacks on constitutional rights crumble,
to so much piss and vinegar, see also:

ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.)

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 18, 2004, 12:45 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Civil rights? Man we need to rethink who gets civil fucking rights. Your rights should cease to exist as a citizen the day you pick up the AK and join the Taliban to fight against the country you claim to be a citizen of. Where are these "civil rights" for the 3000 people that died just because they made it to work on 9/11? This guy got locked up for a while because he was trying to kill Americans. There are a lot of people whose bodies will never even be recovered that I can guarantee you would have LOVED for that to be an option.

Umm if you pick up a weapon to fight against the country you are a citizen of are you not a traitor? Should be summarily executed.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 18, 2004, 1:03 pm

Atokal wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Civil rights? Man we need to rethink who gets civil fucking rights. Your rights should cease to exist as a citizen the day you pick up the AK and join the Taliban to fight against the country you claim to be a citizen of. Where are these "civil rights" for the 3000 people that died just because they made it to work on 9/11? This guy got locked up for a while because he was trying to kill Americans. There are a lot of people whose bodies will never even be recovered that I can guarantee you would have LOVED for that to be an option.
Umm if you pick up a weapon to fight against the country you are a citizen of are you not a traitor? Should be summarily executed.

That is an adequate partial definition of treason. That however is not a prescribed remedy. Those charged with treason are entitled to due process. See it that way because every dictatorship in history agrees with your POV there Toker...And the folks who wrote the constitution were clever enough to see why that was a very very bad idea...

Drolgin Steingrinder · September 18, 2004, 1:40 pm

Atokal wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Civil rights? Man we need to rethink who gets civil fucking rights. Your rights should cease to exist as a citizen the day you pick up the AK and join the Taliban to fight against the country you claim to be a citizen of. Where are these "civil rights" for the 3000 people that died just because they made it to work on 9/11? This guy got locked up for a while because he was trying to kill Americans. There are a lot of people whose bodies will never even be recovered that I can guarantee you would have LOVED for that to be an option.
Umm if you pick up a weapon to fight against the country you are a citizen of are you not a traitor? Should be summarily executed.

Speaking generally, not specifically:

A traitor - or a freedom fighter, a revolutionary. Were the Americans who took up arms against the British Colonial rule traitors? Were the Germans who left their country to fight for the US or the British during WW 2 traitors?

It seems an arbitrary labeling, is all I am saying.