I voted Democrat

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Care to share your sources?

Well, in America, it's innocent until proven guilty. You are the one making the accusation against President Bush, so the burden of proof is on you. I'd like to see what sources you got your information from first (anonymous tips on left-wing propaganda sites don't count).

Originally Posted by Buzzard

What is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?
A writ of habeas corpus is a judicially enforceable order issued by a court of law to a prison official ordering that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that prisoner had been lawfully imprisoned and, if not, whether he or she should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. The right of habeas corpus is the constitutionally bestowed right of a person to present evidence before a court that he or she has been wrongly imprisoned.

Where Our Right of Habeas Corpus Comes From
The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Yes, exactly, it's granted by the Constitution to American CITIZENS, not enemy combatants captured on foreign soil in the act of trying to kill Americans citizens.

Show me one instance from the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, or the Gulf War where we offered the rights of habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Care to share your sources showing that Iraqi citizens were behind the terrorist attacks? You do realize that we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, don't you?

If you are saying that we are making a huge mistake by counting Saudi Arabia as one of our allies, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, war is sometimes a complicated thing. Back in 1941, America was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, so we immediately went to war with Germany. When you oversimplify it like that, it makes no sense. However, there was a lot more going on behind the scenes back in 1941 than was immediately apparent. Exactly the same as the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Wasn't it your wonderful President Bush that started this so called "Patriot Act?"

Unfortunately, the Patriot Act requires intelligence and common sense to be enforced correctly. Something the Democratic Party is in critically short supply of these days.

Originally Posted by NateR

Well, in America, it's innocent until proven guilty. You are the one making the accusation against President Bush, so the burden of proof is on you. I'd like to see what sources you got your information from first (anonymous tips on left-wing propaganda sites don't count).

You said it was proven to be fabricated, I asked for you to share your sources on that. Did you lie and get caught? It shouldn't be hard to provide it if you actually have proof. If you lied, I can see why you won't be able to provide them. Google what I said and you can pick and choose the sources yourself.



Yes, exactly, it's granted by the Constitution to American CITIZENS, not enemy combatants captured on foreign soil in the act of trying to kill Americans citizens.

It was also suspended for American citizens.

Show me one instance from the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, or the Gulf War where we offered the rights of habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

We aren't talking about any of those wars.

In fact, Bush never made an official declaration of war if I recall correctly.


If you are saying that we are making a huge mistake by counting Saudi Arabia as one of our allies, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

I wasn't saying that, but I agree with you too on this point. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of invading Iraq when the majority of these terrorists were Saudis and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it?

However, war is sometimes a complicated thing. Back in 1941, America was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, so we immediately went to war with Germany. When you oversimplify it like that, it makes no sense. However, there was a lot more going on behind the scenes back in 1941 than was immediately apparent. Exactly the same as the Middle East.

There is nothing exactly the same in your example.



Unfortunately, the Patriot Act requires intelligence and common sense to be enforced correctly. Something the Democratic Party is in critically short supply of these days.

Seems that Bush was lacking in those attributes, and the folks that voted that in.

Responses in red.

[Bonnie]

I think we (voting public) are just pawns that get played by whichever political party happens to be smarter and quicker that particular voting cycle.

[Tyburn]

I voted Third party, because between Republicans and Democrats it seems to me its six of one and half a douzen of the other.

Actually...I didnt vote at all, because I'm not American

I voted liberal because I feel like the guys in the CIA who poured some water over guys who aim to kill us should be punished and have their names put out on the public market so every other terrorist and psycho can target him and his family. What are those guys thinking,by protecting the country who asked them to do so? Dont they know that it aint the way of the liberal to actually do your job or ANY job for that matter.

Originally Posted by Rev

I voted liberal because I feel like the guys in the CIA who poured some water over guys who aim to kill us should be punished and have their names put out on the public market so every other terrorist and psycho can target him and his family. What are those guys thinking,by protecting the country who asked them to do so? Dont they know that it aint the way of the liberal to actually do your job or ANY job for that matter.

You do realize that the U.S. tried and convicted people at the end of WW2 for war crimes including waterboarding don't you?

Wow, Rev, I'd hate to hear what you preach. Are you like this guy?

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/08...tor-steve.html

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

Just to step in for Nate real quick, I'll answer this question for you:

He said "during the Civil War". In case you've forgotten, that's where the South rebelled against the Union & attempted to invade Washington D.C.

This is a historical inaccuracy. The North invaded the South. The South seceded as was their constitutional right and the North did not want to loose all those tax dollars and forced the South back by gun point. BTW they did not even attempt to go to DC till later in the War and it was more to get troop out of Virgina then it was to conquer it. You believe way to much Yankee propaganda and revisionist history. Either that you had football coach as your history teacher. The War for Southern independence/Northern aggression (there was nothing civil about that war)had nothing to do with slavery, or rebellion. It was all about taxation w/o representation.

Originally Posted by Chris F

This is a historical inaccuracy. The North invaded the South. The South seceded as was their constitutional right and the North did not want to loose all those tax dollars and forced the South back by gun point. BTW they did not even attempt to go to DC till later in the War and it was more to get troop out of Virgina then it was to conquer it. You believe way to much Yankee propaganda and revisionist history. Either that you had football coach as your history teacher. The War for Southern independence/Northern aggression (there was nothing civil about that war)had nothing to do with slavery, or rebellion. It was all about taxation w/o representation.

This sounds like some hogwash your football coach taught you

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

You do realize that the U.S. tried and convicted people at the end of WW2 for war crimes including waterboarding don't you?

Wow, Rev, I'd hate to hear what you preach. Are you like this guy?

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/08...tor-steve.html

Buzzard, the Crimes of gassing a billion Jews for no reason other then they are Jews...and waterboarding one or two terrorists to SAVE billions of lives...you know...like the ones that WERENT Saved in 9/11...are two different things

This is what a lot of Americans do...they try to match something in their History with something in Global History that equates...and usually the end result is so inaccuarate as to be stupid.

There is no relation between the murders of World War Two, and the Interogation Technique of The War on Terror...they are NOT EVER comparable

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Chris F

This is a historical inaccuracy. The North invaded the South. The South seceded as was their constitutional right and the North did not want to loose all those tax dollars and forced the South back by gun point. BTW they did not even attempt to go to DC till later in the War and it was more to get troop out of Virgina then it was to conquer it. You believe way to much Yankee propaganda and revisionist history. Either that you had football coach as your history teacher. The War for Southern independence/Northern aggression (there was nothing civil about that war)had nothing to do with slavery, or rebellion. It was all about taxation w/o representation.

Well, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

From what I understand, several States left the Union pretty much Leagally. BUT then they formed their own Union and even went as far as tryin to Ellect a President.

But some States were almost split between North and South...that is to say they were North officially, but the South occupied, or failed to withdraw from key battlements.

One of which started the war, when the North decided to obliterate one such battlement. Thus you could say the South was then defending itself I suppose.

However...at some point there was definately a wish by BOTH sides to conqure and gain full control of both Unions. Ultimately the North won...but I hear the South will rise again



also...im sure some kinda trade ship was involved as a trigger to this war...but this is going on memory