Extremely Sad Day In America
 

With the stroke W's pen, our country silently (for the most part) became witness to what may well be the saddest and most shameful day in our country's history. This is worse than an outrage. Right, left or center we share in the blame and shame.

I am sure your exact feelings are shared my many others; maybe enough to pack a HS gymnasium. The ban on Internet gambling is going to send us in the crapper for sure.

Oh internet poker? I guess if your into it its cool.

If you really want to play set up an account in another country and play with that account.

Its the 21st century people come on US law only extends so far!:D

Ah Yes, but is the Arab World outraged??? :D

humana humana humana...

oh. i thought like someone died or we were bombed or something... pffft

The 'stroke' that allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court?
And the law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death.

Oh yes.. I feel safer now. :rolleyes:

Do you?

Sorry man, I don't watch news. WTF are we talking about here? Somebody at least give us a link.

The Terrorists Bill of Rights went down in flames today.

edit: Sorry, forgot the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15301023/

That sounds good, as long as you're convinced that no innocent person will be considered a terrorist. How many people have been held as terrorists and released with no charges since this started going down? Is one too many? Or is a little bit of security worth a little bit of liberty?

You're a little off. This happened several times during the Carter and Clinton presidencies!

There is so much posturing about the new law that frankly, I don't know what the truth of it is.

Congress & president have been wrangling over treatment of prisoners and trial of suspected terrorists almost since the invasion of Afghanistan. The administration asserted that as CiC, the president, in time of war as enacted by Congress, could define who is an enemy combatant and how those persons could be treated. Nobody griped too much about it until a couple of American citizens were caught in the anti-terrorism net.

The question before the courts was this: is a presidential decree of combatant status sufficient to abrogate the natural rights of citizenship? It took several years to find its way up through the appeals system and the Supremes essentially said that a citizen retains his rights.

Concomitantly, non-citizens captured overseas and domestically were jailed and interrogated without either the full protection afforded legal aliens or citizens or legal combatants (according to the Geneva Conventions). These people were held without trial as enemy combatants but not given recognition as POW's through the Geneva Conventions (for a variety of reasons including not fighting in a uniform or under a banner, not carrying weapons openly, making war against noncombatants, concealing themselves in areas proscribed by the Conventions, and others). Bowing to international and domestic pressure, the administration, acting as CinC, established tribunals to administer military proceedings against some of the combatants. This process also was open to appeal, which was granted.

The appeals went to the Supremes who said that the process was flawed because it was enacted without going through the legal process required by law: passage through both houses of Congress.

So, this law was Congress' attempt to address both issues that the Supreme Court required.

I have not read the law and I have yet to read what I would consider an unbiased, objective analysis of the law. The one thing that I have heard that I think is extremely dangerous, if true, is that this law allows for attenuation of certain constitutional guarantees even to citizens. In all honesty, I don't give a damn what happens to some murderous bastard collected on the field of battle who is not a citizen. Waterboard the mofo, I don't care.

But I do not think that the CinC should have the power to declare a citizen unworthy of the rights of citizenship.

My opinion. Based on lots of opinion from lots of partisan jerks and no facts.

B

I think this is what you guys are talking about, this is what the White House has to say about it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017.html

So what the hells going on with internet gambling?

Maybe you're right. We should go back to the old fashioned way, just shoot 'em on the battlefield. No need for all these pesky tribunals and stuff.

I sure a lot of people didn't care what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. Some probably thought they deserved what they got as well. The trouble with that is it's all fine and good until you aren't on the right team anymore and you are on the recieving end of these measures. Just be sure to remember you are with us or against us because you no longer have any legal protections. If old Georgie or Donny doesn't like the cut of your jib you are done for. I don't see the value added or need to give up our rights to deal with the terrorists. They are criminals pure and simple and there are means in place to deal with them just like any other murderers.

At the end of the day I'm sure this measure will accomplish its primary objective that being to intimidate any opposing viewpoints. From that point of view I'm sure many will find the United States a more peaceful and agreeable place.