The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Bin Laden's Death. How do you feel about it?
Bin Laden's Death.. how do you feel about and what are some of your thoughts on everything that is happing?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Of course, when you can't debate on the facts, then you start attacking the source...isn't that a tactic out of "Desperation 101?
Ben Waller 101 actually. Like where you dismiss my cutting and pasting of the P.A. to show how the constitution has been overruled.
LOL are you requiring me to respond within a certain amount of time?
Show me the links where the S.C. has ruled in favor of all claims.
The only S.C. ruling I can find is the June 2010 ruling that upheld The material support law prohibits U.S. citizens from providing "services," "personnel" or "training, expert advice or assistance" to U.S.-designated terrorist groups.
I can't find any other challenges, does that mean that the P.A. is constitutional or only that it hasn't been further challenged?
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2...
- http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/individual-rights/patrio...
Seriously Ben, I include an inadvertent dead link and you suggest that was my counterpoint? Really? From you?
I congratulate you for finding the deeper truth in the words of John Ashcroft and Rush Limbaugh ROTFLMAO
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
The fact that no one has lost liberty is prima facie evidence that none has been lost.
"We don't know that for sure since there is no way to know it since the P.A. doesn't allow for a writ of habeus corpus."
That's completely disconnected. The P.A. doesn't restrict anyone from knowing who has been denied habeus corpus, so of course there is a way to know. Just because the terrorists are not released doesn't mean that no one knows that they are being held.
As for the Germans, when they were detained and denied habeus corpus, they were suspected, not convicted, remember. The more you try to seperate the WWII German spy case from modern terrorism suspects, the more you make the point that the two are very, very alike. In fact, you're biting into an apple and stating "nice apple flavor" while proclaiming that you're eating an orange.
Your continued attack on a source of evidence is diversionary.
If you want to disprove the claim, disprove it with some evidence.
You can't so you attack the source. That's a hallmark of the inability to dispute the claims from whatever the source.
Then you claim that you didn't post a liberal source as a counterpoint. Well, strictly speaking, you didn't. You tried, but your link was dead so you didn't try very effectively. That's disengenuous.
The changing of the wording was simply to show that by merely changing the name of the people we're talking about makes the case that the two examples are otherwise so similar as to be nearly identical. If the best you can do is to claim that's silly without any kind of supporting evidence or logic backing it up, then you really got nothin'.
"Any alien can be detained and deprived of their legally entitled rights on the basis of suspicion." Wrong. Those aliens are not deprived of any "legally entitled rights" on the basis of suspicion or anything else. That claim has already been debunked here. If I'm wrong, find some legal evidence that disproves it.
Remember, the P.A. has withstood numerous legal challenges, in toto and in detail as I've alread stated. It is still in force and it was re-authorized by a Congress that included Democratic ability to kill the legislation. The Democrats didn't do that. Maybe they know something you don't.
As for being at war with a "rag tag bunch of radical extremists", have you watched the news from Afghanistan in the last 9 years or so? You might have noticed that your definition exactly fits the definition of those whom our military is fighting there right now. So, suddenly the group that fits YOUR description should be treated like simple criminals simply because a few of them make it to the U.S.? That is the truly silly concept in this discussion.
As for dismissive and insulting, why does it bother you so much when I start returning your tactics in kind? That's more than mildly hypocritical of you. I was merely doing the same sort of editorializing that you started throwing at me several posts back. Sauce for the goose...
-
-
Jack,
For the, well, I forget how many times I've pointed it out, your cutting and pasting is not pertinent, because it applies to criminal law, not to war.
Repetitively citing something that is not pertinent proves nothing.
The dead link - inadvertent or not, it's sloppy, just like your reasoning on this one.
If there was a single un-Constitutional item in the Patriot Act, it would have been challenged all the way to SCOTUS and overturned a long time ago. That hasn't happened. The reason - the Patriot Act is not un-Constitutional, no one has lost a liberty to which they were previously entitled, and no one has yet been able to make a cogent argument to the contrary - you included. The continued presence and re-authorization of the Patriot Act is more prima facie evidence that this is the case.
And Jack, it's pretty hypocritical of you to label a tactic that you started here as being mine, nor is that accusation accurate.
-
-
Now you're just arguing for the sake of argument.
The P.A. doesn't restrict anyone from knowing who has been denied habeus corpus, If there is no writ of habeus corpus there is no requirement for the government to show just cause for the arrest/detainment. There is no hearing and there is no record of arrest.
The more you try to seperate the WWII German spy case from modern terrorism suspects, the more you make the point that the two are very, very alike. LOL Not at all. In fact YOU'RE the one making the comparison. Apparently you don't get the fact that a nation and an organization are two very different entities.
Your continued attack on a source of evidence is diversionary. Ya wanna 'splain that lucy?
If you want to disprove the claim, disprove it with some evidence. Disprove what claim? That liberties have been given up? Thought I did with cut and paste of the P.A.
Then you claim that you didn't post a liberal source as a counterpoint. Well, strictly speaking, you didn't. You tried, but your link was dead so you didn't try very effectively. That's disengenuous. No, I said I had avoided using liberal sources since I knew you would refute them as biased. I attempted to include one and somehow posted a dead link. If you think I did that on purpose then why do you even bother to continue this with me? Show me any where where I have included dead links, being disingenuous or otherwise. You're using the accidental dead link in the same manner one would attack a person's spelling rather than their thought.
The changing of the wording was simply to show that by merely changing the name of the people we're talking about makes the case that the two examples are otherwise so similar as to be nearly identical. Merely changing the names of the people did NOT make the case that the examples are identical. It still remains way out there to try and compare nazi solders/spy/saboteurs with rag tag extremist terrorists. But ya keep on trying.
"Any alien can be detained and deprived of their legally entitled rights on the basis of suspicion." Wrong. Those aliens are not deprived of any "legally entitled rights" on the basis of suspicion or anything else. That claim has already been debunked here. If I'm wrong, find some legal evidence that disproves it. Where has the claim been debunked? I was making that assertion based on the wording of the P.A. So let me get this straight, you CLAIM to be right and say that I have to prove you WROMG? LMFAO.
Remember, the P.A. has withstood numerous legal challenges, in toto and in detail as I've alread stated.
As I pointed out elsewhere in this rambling debate, the only challenge I could find, the S.C. upheld the "material support" clause. Show me where other challenges have been made and UPHELD by the S.C.
...it was re-authorized by a Congress that included Democratic ability to kill the legislation. The Democrats didn't do that. Uh huh so that makes it constitutional? I'll have to remember that.
As for being at war with a "rag tag bunch of radical extremists", have you watched the news from Afghanistan in the last 9 years or so? What? We're at war? Do you include that to imply that I'm somehow "disconnected" from the real world? Is this a way to somehow discredit my opinions?
You might have noticed that your definition exactly fits the definition of those whom our military is fighting there right now. Which definition is that? Better yet, which nation are we fighting against?
So, suddenly the group that fits YOUR description should be treated like simple criminals simply because a few of them make it to the U.S.? Again, which description? That of nazi/german solders from a country we were at war with? So we're at war with the sovereign nation of afgahnaistan? I though it was al quada and the taliban. Which nation are they?
So, suddenly the group that fits YOUR description should be treated like simple criminals simply because a few of them make it to the U.S.? I agree with you there, you were the one who thought up the whole german solders on u.s. is that same thing as terrorists concept. Silly indeed.
As for dismissive and insulting, why does it bother you so much when I start returning your tactics in kind? Kindly show me where I was in any way dismissive or insulting? Your problem is you take these things so seriously and you keep instituting rules like I'm editorializing or some such.
Sauce for the goose... is good for the gander. I suspect your sauce is, what was it...winsaps. Mangia bene.
-
-
Ben, we've reached that point where you're getting angry and irrational. You should probably go to bed and get your rest.
The link was an accident, not unlike a couple of misspellings in your comments (I didn't see them as sloppy, just an error or two, I guess I'm more forgiving than you.)
I really appreciate your many efforts to set me straight, it must be tiring for you. But, the cutting and the pasting, it really is about criminal law. Go back to the very beginning of this discussion. It was how the P.A. removes rights from legal aliens in this country if they are 'suspected' of being a terrorist et. al. You decided to make this whole thing about war. But I'll refresh it for you, any legal alien in this country (hmm, let's just say they happen to be muslim) can be picked up and detained if some one, in some government agency "suspects" they may be a terrorist. Maybe my mistake is in thinking that this could be done error, while yours is that no possible error could take place and if a person is detained, they must be guilty.
I did ask you for links to show challenges to the P.A. and you've only supplied verbiage. I at least included the sole link I could find that worked your claim.
Your harping on the constitutionality of the P.A. is merely parroting the heritage foundation's claim.
And Jack, it's pretty hypocritical of you to label a tactic that you started here as being mine, Um...which tactic and how did I label it?
P.s. It's killing me, did you take a course at the local CC on debate and/or philosophy? Yourconstantregular use of phrases such as 'logical fallacy', 'straw man' et al come from philosophy, so I'm just a wonderin'?
P.p.s. time to go to bed...just didn't want you to be tick tocking me waiting for another response. Perhaps tomorrow.
P.p.p.s Might I recommend a vacation? Does a person wonders. Be happy to share my picks of venice and rome if you're interested.
-
-
Jack,
Here's "dismissive and insulting" for you.
"Now you're just arguing for the sake of argument."
That's not the first time you've made that dismissive, insulting argument.
Your accusation that I "keep instituting rules..." is B.S. You started the insults and dismissiveness instead of sticking to the topic of the debate. As usual, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
As for "making up rules", you are actually the one that did - and continues to do that, by your insistance on limiting the discussion of a war to conflicts with other nations. That's an artificial rule that doesn't fit the reality of fighting a war against terrorists - as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
You're being mega-hypocritical and not-too-accurate here, Jack.
As for Supreme Court rulings that either dismissed or upheld challenges to the Patriot Act, there's a straw man alert. I don't recall mentioning the Supreme Court at all, let alone any Patriot Act cases making it to them at all. In case you missed it, the courts have a couple of layers below the SCOTUS. That's another of your bogus assumptions here.
As for the aliens not being deprived of any rights, I've already made my case - they are prisoners of war and as such, they have no right to habeus corpus. You're using a criminal definition inappropriately, as I've told you repeatedly. You cite something that doesn't apply as a supposed "proof" that some kind of liberty has been lost. Since the (hypothetical) people you describe were not entitled to the right you claim in the first place - with or without the Patriot Act - then your claim isn't accurate.
And here's another example of your hypocrisy in this debate - you complain about me supposedly making up rules for the discussion, when you made up the original rule that is the core of your argument. You made up the rule that says criminal law applies to aliens who are suspected of terrorism. It does not. They're prisoners of war, not criminals. Claiming otherwise is just making up your own rules. The continued existance of the Patriot Act is prima facie evidence of that fact.
-
-
Jack, your ability to make inaccurate characterizations hasn't slowed down, I see.
I'm not angry at all, nor am I irrational. I'm simply pointing out that the fact that the continuation of the Patriot Act is still in effect and that it was re-legislated, lock, stock, and barrel puts the preponderance of the evidence in congruence with my point of view.
Your cutting and pasting and arguing about criminal law when we are at war is the epitome of irrationality.
Your demand that I cite Supreme Court cases when I never mentioned the Supremes is indeed a straw man - making an argument that is more extreme than one I made while trying to make it sound as if I was the one who made it. That is indeed a logical fallacy.
Attacking sources while being unable to refute the claims from those sources is another.
As for hypocritical, let's start with your insulting and dismissive - and repetitive - use of "You're just arguing for the sake of argument."
Then there was that "accidental" dead link. Yeah, right.
Might I recommend that you avoid the chronic use of logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks in debate? Does a person wonders.
-
-
And another thing, Jack.
"Now you're arguing just to argue." You've said that to me at least twice in this discussion.
Then you start arguing in reply to a post that I addressed to someone else?
See the irony there?
-
-
Here's a citizen's challenge to the P.A. that was dismissed - and he had a lot better legal standing than an alien.
...and his case was dismissed.
The ACLU dropped their 2003 anti-Patriot Act case in 2006, citing "improvements in the law".
Another old-news challenge to the Patriot Act dismissed.
There were a few challenges to some of the specific sections of the original Patriot Act, but since the 2006 revision to clarify some things that were ruled as un-Constitutionally vague" I can't find a single legal challenge that has been upheld. The 2006 revisions were the reason that the ACLU dropped their case.
Interestingly, I can't find any case where the detention of an alien has been challenged on any grounds. Given the amount of Patriot Act controversy in the past decade, and the vast number of aliens who have entered the U.S. in that time, it defies logic, statistical probability, and legal precedent, if that provision of the P.A. were indeed un-Constitutional, it wouldn't have been legally challenged at least once.
P.S. Apparently you did NOT take your local CC debate or philosophy class, given your frequent use of logical fallacies in debate.
P.P.S. When you use logical fallacies, it's not only fair, but expected that someone will point them out. Ridiculing the imagined background of the person who points them out is actually two different logical fallacies in one - an ad hominem attack, since you're attacking the person and not the idea, and a non sequitur, since it's not pertinent to the fallacist's use of logical fallacies.
-
-
LOL,as did you, the original discussion was with Mark O. You just started arguing in reply to a post I addressed to someone else. Oh yeah...your rules only apply to everyone else, just not you. What a hypocrite.
-
-
In the fall of 2006, the U.S. government paid Mayfield $2 million, and the FBI apologized, for detaining him in prison for 14 days in 2004, wiretapping his phones, searching his home when he wasn’t there and using faulty fingerprint identification to try to link him to train bombings in Madrid, Spain, earlier that year.
In the settlement agreement, Mayfield agreed to not pursue further litigation, except in regards to one point: Whether his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the Patriot Act. After filing an amended complaint, a federal judge ruled in Mayfield’s favor, deciding that his constitutional rights had been violated.
Mayfield can now drop the case, ask the appeals court for a reconsideration or appeal the decision to the United State Supreme Court.
Sounds like he won his case, may have the right to appeal to the SC and, had his liberty taken and his rights given up. Doesn't that answer your very first question in this whole debate about giving up liberty for security? Thanks for that.
Given the amount of Patriot Act controversy in the past decade, and the vast number of aliens who have entered the U.S. in that time, it defies logic, statistical probability, and legal precedent, if that provision of the P.A. were indeed un-Constitutional, it wouldn't have been legally challenged at least once.
How many aliens have entered the u.s.?
what is the statistical probability? You can't just say that without some math to back you up.
No I did not take debate or philosophy at university, it was already filled with chess club and mathletes.
Wow, you really are thin skinned, or is this just more of your disingenuous hurt feelings/taking the high road? You missed the turn for that high road Ben.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
Not at all, just based on their IQ.
You ever taken a peak at the site, "people of walmart". If you haven't, do so, then you'll know where I'm coming from.
So, we should start evacuating malls because some guy has an umbrella sticking out of his backpack?
A butter knife on a kindergardner (sp?) should continue to cause schools to go in lockdown?
Soap residue and hand lotion should continue to cause a virtual strip search of citizens because of nitrates.
All the while knowing, that all 19 hijackers were Muslim males from Saudi Arabia. All in the name of vigilance?
Or the Hercules Teams in NYC? Can you say police state?
Or how about that southern border that anybody and everybody can walk through, but we're pulling all this other crap to legal citizens that are supposed to be protected from this by the Constitution.
Vigilance has been replaced by paranoia.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
