FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-06-2007, 08:52 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,756
Local Time: 09:14 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono
Since when is saving lives against the constitution?
It's not. Who ever said it was?

No, what we're criticizing are the METHODS that we use to save lives.

Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono
Bottom line - You fight fire with fire and terrorism with terrorism because that's the only language the terrorists understand.
You don't fight terrorism by gentle persuasion.....only by brute force.
All I have to do is look in a history book to see that that line of thinking is wrong. War is nothing more than a vicious cycle. All it does is lead people to hold grudges, the side that loses has to pick up the pieces for god knows how long, and innocent people are punished because of the actions of a few people. Wars may give people short-term resolutions, but the long-term effects are never good. If war solved things, we wouldn't be fighting each other anymore, we'd have gotten everything hammered out eons ago.

You cannot fight terrorism with more terrorism. They attack us, we attack them, they get angrier and attack us back, we get even angrier than that and attack them back...do you see where I'm going here?

In order to fight the fire you use water. And no, we don't need to be "gentle" in dealing with them. I don't know when people got this idea that diplomacy meant gentleness and hugs and flowers. We can still be just as tough with diplomatic methods.

As for this:

Quote:
If you or your family were threatened, you'd make damm sure they were safe and sound using any means necessary to provide for their safety - and so would I.
You're absolutely right. I would fight back. But here's the difference: I'm going after the person(s) DIRECTLY responsible for threatening my family. War doesn't allow for that. If we could find a way to go after the actual people who attacked us on 9/11, that's one thing-I'd be fine with that, as they deserve to be punished. But we don't. Instead, we start a war, and that drags innocent people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack into it, and they get hurt/killed as a result. Meanwhile, the people who actually were involved with the crime don't get caught (so, uh, how much longer 'till we find Osama again?).

Not to mention, if I used illegal means to deal with someone who threatened my family or myself, I would expect to be punished for my crimes. And this administration needs to be held accountable for its crimes.

Angela
__________________

Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 09:24 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:14 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


if I used illegal means to deal with someone who threatened my family or myself, I would expect to be punished for my crimes. And this administration needs to be held accountable for its crimes.

Angela
Or...given credit that no addition attacks have occurred within our borders.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 09:29 PM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:14 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Or...given credit that no addition attacks have occurred within our borders.
Who's to say we would have been attacked in the past few years?

If anything, Bush's actions have created more enemies.

You're saying the ends justify the means ... and that's wrong. There are plenty of means to getting everything resolved, and war shouldn't be. It can't be.

We fought a war with a nation, when we were attacked by groups of people, not nations. It doesn't add up.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 09:30 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 02:14 PM
None occured in the 9 years between the two Trade Centre attacks either.
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 09:31 PM   #85
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:14 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Or...given credit that no addition attacks have occurred within our borders.
Oh yes I love this argument. I ate a magic jelly bean when I was a kid and haven't got cancer yet, it's probably the jelly bean.
BVS is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 10:24 PM   #86
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
None occured in the 9 years between the two Trade Centre attacks either.
Or before.
martha is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 10:35 PM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: turtle island
Posts: 22,245
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Neither the Bill of Rights nor habeas corpus rights extend beyond our borders or to foreign prisoners of war.
So that makes it okay to anything we want to them?

I'm sure if you were arrested in some foreign country without charges you wouldn't say "well, habeas corpus doesn't apply...oh well".

DaveC is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 10:38 PM   #88
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:14 AM
Dave, they are all terrorists, we don't have to prove it.
BVS is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 10:47 PM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: turtle island
Posts: 22,245
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Dave, they are all terrorists, we don't have to prove it.
That's right, "The Decider" said so.
DaveC is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:04 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Actually, this discussion is getting interesting and Mrs. S. provided a good catalyst with the Fox decision for a discussion on what we really think (or feel) about the Constitution. Is it a document that we pull out only to parade in front of the world when we need some good PR? Is it outdated? Do we send parts of it to the recycle bin and if so, what parts? Do we bear responsibility for it by living up to it? It's not a perfect document. But it's a strong one, and one we have invited the world to judge us by. Without it, without protecting it, without practicing it, we become something other. Maybe the discussion is are we better or worse as that something other.
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:18 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
None occured in the 9 years between the two Trade Centre attacks either.
Technically, the 1998 simultaneous attacks on U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya (which killed 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals, and 247 Kenyan citizens) and in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (which killed 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens) would be attacks on United States soil.
The years not mentioned are 1996 (when Osama bin Laden declared war on America) and 2001 (when the United States set up the Global Coalition Against Terrorism), better known as the Global war On Terror.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:32 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,756
Local Time: 09:14 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Or...given credit that no addition attacks have occurred within our borders.
No, no attacks. Just threats, a continually raised terror alert, and us becoming completely paranoid and targeting anybody that "looks suspicious".

Believe me, I'm glad that no more attacks have happened thus far, but I still don't see our current situation as all that much better-we're living in fear, and that's not helping matters one bit. And while we haven't witnessed attacks, I know one of our allies has. London, anyone?

Ditto the other responses, too.

Angela
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:41 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 09:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Technically, the 1998 simultaneous attacks on U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya (which killed 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals, and 247 Kenyan citizens) and in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (which killed 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens) would be attacks on United States soil.
The years not mentioned are 1996 (when Osama bin Laden declared war on America) and 2001 (when the United States set up the Global Coalition Against Terrorism), better known as the Global war On Terror.
And lets not forgot the Oklahoma City bombings conducted once again by these wild-eyed Islamofascist zealots who---

Oh, wait a second. That's right, those attacks were coordinated by White Americans. Dang.

Perhaps looser restrictions on the treatment of terrorist suspects might have stopped that attack?

Ever notice how nobody talks about Oklahoma City these days? Guess McVeigh just doesn't fit neatly into the profile of who the enemy is in this "war on terror."

My point is Bush, Clinton, the war on terror, the War in Iraq--all have done nothing of any real concrete value to protect us from terrorism. It's questionable in my mind how much can truly be done to make us 100% safe from any acts of terrorism. I'm not suggesting we relax and do nothing at all, but it's telling that Israel, which has some of the most stringent anti-terrorist policies out there still suffers many more terrorist attacks than our country does. And I would suspect that a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would do more to reduce terrorist attacks there than still more stringent measures.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:45 PM   #94
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Technically, the 1998 simultaneous attacks on U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya (which killed 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals, and 247 Kenyan citizens) and in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (which killed 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens) would be attacks on United States soil.
But you kinda suggested earlier that these don't count:

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor habeas corpus rights extend beyond our borders or to foreign prisoners of war."

But you care all of a sudden?

Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

The years not mentioned are 1996 (when Osama bin Laden declared war on America) and 2001 (when the United States set up the Global Coalition Against Terrorism), better known as the Global war On Terror.
What does this have to do with actual attacks?
BVS is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:54 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
[B

Roe v Wade withdrew from the States the power to legislate with respect to abortion. There is no language in the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution that indicates this is what it's drafters intended.. [/B]
However, Roe v Wade did not allow the federal government to usurp abortion legislation from the state. Basically, it said that neither the state nor the federal government had that right and that right (in the first trimester) went to the individual. Part of what the Constitution does do is to separate the powers.

Indy500 is right in noting that Roe v Wade drew heavily on the 14th amendment. It also drew on the 9th.

From Wikipedia (out of laziness)

(The Ninth Amendment has generally been regarded by the courts as negating any expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution, but the Amendment has not been regarded as further limiting governmental power. The U.S. Supreme Court explained this, in U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U.S. 75 (1947): "If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."


"Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.")


Then being less lazy, I went back to read the decision. It was very interesting that the common law regarding abortion prior to 1860 was fairly close in principle to the Court's first trimester ruling. ie prior to then, the government did not interfere with abortion prior to quickening, but laws were made for the period after quickening.

("3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 -- was not an indictable offense. 21 The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was "mediate animation." Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.

Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law, or even a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide. 23 But the later and predominant view, following the great common-law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a lesser offense. In a frequently cited passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman "quick with child" is "a great misprision, and no murder." 24 Blackstone followed, saying that while abortion after quickening had once been considered manslaughter (though not murder), "modern law" took a less severe view. 25 A recent review of the common-law precedents argues, however, that those precedents contradict Coke and that even post-quickening abortion was never established as a common-law crime. 26 This is of some importance because while most American courts ruled, in holding or dictum, that abortion of an unquickened fetus was not criminal under their received common law, 27 others followed Coke in stating that abortion of a quick fetus was a "misprision," a term they translated to mean "misdemeanor." 28 That their reliance on Coke on this aspect of the law was uncritical and, apparently in all the reported cases, dictum (due probably to the paucity of common-law prosecutions for post-quickening abortion), makes it now appear doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus.




4. The English statutory law. England's first criminal abortion statute, Lord Ellenborough's Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, came in 1803. It made abortion of a quick fetus, § 1, a capital crime, but in § 2 it provided lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening, and thus preserved the "quickening" distinction. This contrast was continued in the general revision of 1828, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, § 13. It disappeared, however, together with the death penalty, in 1837, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict., c. 85, § 6, and did not reappear in the Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, § 59, that formed the core of English anti-abortion law until the liberalizing reforms of 1967. In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 34, came into being. Its emphasis was upon the destruction of "the life of a child capable of being born alive." It made a willful act performed with the necessary intent a felony. It contained a proviso that one was not to be found guilty of the offense "unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother."


5. The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough's Act that related to a woman "quick with child." 29 The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. 30 In 1828, New York enacted legislation 31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it "shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose." By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, 32 only eight American States had statutes dealing with abortion. 33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening but were lenient with it before quickening. Most punished attempts equally with completed abortions. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother's life, that provision soon disappeared and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose.




Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950's, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother. 34 The exceptions, Alabama and the District of Columbia, permitted abortion to preserve the mother's health. 35 Three States permitted abortions that were not "unlawfully" performed or that were not "without lawful justification," leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts. 36 In the past several years, however, a trend toward liberalization of abortion statutes has resulted in adoption, by about one-third of the States, of less stringent laws, most of them patterned after the ALI Model Penal Code, § 230.3, 37 set forth as Appendix B to the opinion in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 205.



It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.")

Edited for space.



http://tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 06:59 AM   #96
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Actually, this discussion is getting interesting and Mrs. S. provided a good catalyst with the Fox decision for a discussion on what we really think (or feel) about the Constitution. Is it a document that we pull out only to parade in front of the world when we need some good PR? Is it outdated? Do we send parts of it to the recycle bin and if so, what parts? Do we bear responsibility for it by living up to it? It's not a perfect document. But it's a strong one, and one we have invited the world to judge us by. Without it, without protecting it, without practicing it, we become something other. Maybe the discussion is are we better or worse as that something other.
Excellent point, and one not to be ignored. We're supposedly trying establish democratic governments in these countries we invade (and not just control their oil supplies), yet we're willing to subvert our own Constitution because of fear and short-sighted alliances. Some example of democracy we're setting.


But this point will be ignored as well in the fights over Roe v. Wade, the fights over whether torture is acceptable in the 21st century, and whether we should let Israel and its apartheid be an example for the US.
martha is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 10:39 AM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


And lets not forgot the Oklahoma City bombings conducted once again by these wild-eyed Islamofascist zealots who---

Oh, wait a second. That's right, those attacks were coordinated by White Americans. Dang.

Perhaps looser restrictions on the treatment of terrorist suspects might have stopped that attack?

Ever notice how nobody talks about Oklahoma City these days? Guess McVeigh just doesn't fit neatly into the profile of who the enemy is in this "war on terror."

My point is Bush, Clinton, the war on terror, the War in Iraq--all have done nothing of any real concrete value to protect us from terrorism. It's questionable in my mind how much can truly be done to make us 100% safe from any acts of terrorism. I'm not suggesting we relax and do nothing at all, but it's telling that Israel, which has some of the most stringent anti-terrorist policies out there still suffers many more terrorist attacks than our country does. And I would suspect that a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would do more to reduce terrorist attacks there than still more stringent measures.
All good points I'd say. Sure, you can find all kinds of acts of terrorism in countless conflicts around the world in the past 50 years. But I brought up 1996 as the point that bin laden and Al-Qaeda really began to coordinate attacks with a stated goal and purpose.

Here would be the debate:

Resolved: American citizens are safer because of the post 9/11 actions of the Bush White House.

We have heard in the negative that;
1) No, they have actually illegally robbed us of our liberties -- turned us into them, changed us for the worst.
2) No, Al-Qaeda is very patient, they're just bidding their time. It is only a coincidence that we haven't been attacked.
3) No, we are producing more terrorists, we should be doing the opposite, withdrawing our influence from the Middle East, and our problems would cease or lessen.
4) There is no terror threat, The (so called) War On Terror keeps us in fear under false pretenses and through manipulation. The Executive Branch is threatening the checks and balances of our government by usurping power.
5) The War in Iraq has been a disaster by any means of measurement. The trillions spent would have been much better spent on homeland security here in this country.
6) America's image and foreign policy have been tainted or harmed in the eyes of the world.

While acknowledging there may some degree of truth in the above arguments. In the positive one would argue;
1) Interrogation of key captured members of Al-Qaeda has allowed us to stop planned terror attacks. Detaining enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay has keep them from carrying out their stated goal of harming Americans.
2) Legislation and programs such as the Patriot Act, NSA, formation of Homeland Security Dept, tracking of international banking records, airport screening, etc; have cut off funding, boasted domestic law enforcement and made communication between terrorists more difficult.
3) The war in Afghanistan has decimated Al-Qaeda as it existed in 2001. Yes they still exist, but their ability to plan and execute a large scale attack in N America has been delayed if not severely compromised.
4) Whether by plan or by accident, the war in Iraq has shrunk the battlefield in the War on Terror, concentrating it to one spot on the globe.
5) Relations with our allies are actually rather good. There is cooperation in intelligence and Germany and France have recently elected much more pro-American foreign policy Heads of State.

No attacks since 9/11/2001, coincidence or not?
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 01:58 PM   #98
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:14 AM
You forgot that the War in Iraq brought terror cells to Iraq and made the battlefield larger.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 02:03 PM   #99
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:14 AM
We wouldn't want to make sense.
BVS is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:14 PM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,720
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


1) Interrogation of key captured members of Al-Qaeda has allowed us to stop planned terror attacks. Detaining enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay has keep them from carrying out their stated goal of harming Americans.


just what kind of "interrogation" are we talking about?
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×