Org Mobile Site
How do you know that there has not been a tribunal and that they have not been deemed "illegal combatants"? These things are not required to be done in public.
Not in public , but there are certain nominated parties that must be informed of any developments , in this case the Red Cross and the detainees country of origin , the country they were originally detained in whether it is a country involved in the conflict or a neutral third country , and the country in which they are detained and any country they have been transfered through while in detention .
Complicated things laws arn't they , is that why you have a problem with them ?
Yes, but if they have been found to be illegal combatants, then holding them in isolation and interrogating them is not a violation of any law that I am aware of.
There are also lots of stipulations on interrogation , holding in isolation is also not allowed unless under specific circumstances .
Not in public , but there are certain nominated parties that must be informed of any developments , in this case the Red Cross and the detainees country of origin , the country they were originally detained in whether it is a country involved in the conflict or a neutral third country , and the country in which they are detained and any country they have been transfered through while in detention .
Complicated things laws arn't they , is that why you have a problem with them ?
Yes, but if they have been found to be illegal combatants, then holding them in isolation and interrogating them is not a violation of any law that I am aware of.
There are also lots of stipulations on interrogation , holding in isolation is also not allowed unless under specific circumstances .
Afghanistan was not a war. It was a campaing within a war.
When invading france in WW2 did we declare war on france? We declared war on germany. France was part of the equation.
I feel like I am on a see-saw.
Soly is right.
When invading france in WW2 did we declare war on france? We declared war on germany. France was part of the equation.
I feel like I am on a see-saw.
Soly is right.
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma:
Afghanistan was not a war. It was a campaing within a war.
When invading france in WW2 did we declare war on france? We declared war on germany. France was part of the equation.
The reason I ask where the declaration of war is... is because many a poster is saying we can keep the prisoners in prison until the war is finished. Well if you are going to finish something, you first have to start it.Afghanistan was not a war. It was a campaing within a war.
When invading france in WW2 did we declare war on france? We declared war on germany. France was part of the equation.
Show me the declaration of war and its intent...
Originally Posted by Goofball:
It's a scary state of affairs when we simply have to take the word of the government about something like that.
Think about what you are suggesting, TC. Due process cannot be private and still be credible.
I agree with you on both counts. Unfortunately wartime is different from peacetime. Whether we like it or not, ALL governments assume greater powers in times of conflict. I'm not saying I actively support this, I'm not saying this is definitely the right thing to do. What I'm saying is that it is not de facto illegal. People keep stating falsely that the US is breaking the law here and I'm trying to rebut that sentiment. It may well be, but there's no way to tell from that article.It's a scary state of affairs when we simply have to take the word of the government about something like that.
Think about what you are suggesting, TC. Due process cannot be private and still be credible.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Not in public , but there are certain nominated parties that must be informed of any developments , in this case the Red Cross and the detainees country of origin , the country they were originally detained in whether it is a country involved in the conflict or a neutral third country , and the country in which they are detained and any country they have been transfered through while in detention .
Complicated things laws arn't they , is that why you have a problem with them ?
First of all, I do not have a problem with laws; in fact I work in the legal system. Second... I agree with the rest of that statement. Regardless of security, the home nations of these individuals should definitely know that they are being held. The Red Cross should also have access to these people provided that it does not endanger lives or national security. I don't see how that conflicts with what I've been saying though.Not in public , but there are certain nominated parties that must be informed of any developments , in this case the Red Cross and the detainees country of origin , the country they were originally detained in whether it is a country involved in the conflict or a neutral third country , and the country in which they are detained and any country they have been transfered through while in detention .
Complicated things laws arn't they , is that why you have a problem with them ?
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
The reason I ask where the declaration of war is... is because many a poster is saying we can keep the prisoners in prison until the war is finished. Well if you are going to finish something, you first have to start it.
Show me the declaration of war and its intent...
Again the United States has established a precedence of fighting wars without a formal declartion of war. It does however issue authorizations for the use of force.The reason I ask where the declaration of war is... is because many a poster is saying we can keep the prisoners in prison until the war is finished. Well if you are going to finish something, you first have to start it.
Show me the declaration of war and its intent...
Now which one would you like
Originally Posted by :
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 14, 2001
Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;
Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;
Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force' .
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 14, 2001
Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;
Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;
Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force' .
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Is the CIA covered by this? Are they part of the United States Armed Forces?
Or do they have a different set of authority?
As it stands it seems the prisoners don't have a whole lot of rights. Nor does it seem that the innocent until proven guilty idea is being used. Also the idea that Justice should be swift and seen to be done has also been abandoned.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
Or do they have a different set of authority?
As it stands it seems the prisoners don't have a whole lot of rights. Nor does it seem that the innocent until proven guilty idea is being used. Also the idea that Justice should be swift and seen to be done has also been abandoned.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
personal attacks will be responded to (by me). it's only the internet, please step away if you feel in danger of overreaching.
if this continues in this direction the Sir Clegane or I will lock this thread. it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel for everyone.
/metaphor mode off
if this continues in this direction the Sir Clegane or I will lock this thread. it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel for everyone.
/metaphor mode off
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Is the CIA covered by this? Are they part of the United States Armed Forces?
I know what I think about the CIA - but that doesn't answer your question. But in short they probably fall within the scope of the authorization of the use of force resolution that passed through Congress.Is the CIA covered by this? Are they part of the United States Armed Forces?
Originally Posted by :
Or do they have a different set of authority?
They fall under a different chain of command - but still answerable to the same government.Or do they have a different set of authority?
First I'd like to say that if someone believes that their government is right to set up prisons abroad with the deliberate intent of circumventing its own laws then it is their call, though it seems strange to me.
A further point may be made on the nature of individuals in these prisons. They need not necessarily be POW (illegal fighters or not). People assume that they are, but what if they are not?
A further point may be made on the nature of individuals in these prisons. They need not necessarily be POW (illegal fighters or not). People assume that they are, but what if they are not?
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
The reason I ask where the declaration of war is... is because many a poster is saying we can keep the prisoners in prison until the war is finished. Well if you are going to finish something, you first have to start it.
Exactly. The reason I ask where the declaration of war is... is because many a poster is saying we can keep the prisoners in prison until the war is finished. Well if you are going to finish something, you first have to start it.
Is the 'War on Terrorism' and Al Qaeda a war or not?
If it is, then there are rules that apply, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions. As Redleg has pointed out, some of these are being violated at Guantanamo if this is the case.
If it isn't, then on what legal basis are citizens of other countries being held in secret prisons against their will?
Originally Posted by :
And you do not embody the American who gains admiration and respect, who embodies the "American Way".
And you do not embody the American who gains admiration and respect, who embodies the "American Way".
Originally Posted by :
As for Panzer. Well if his ideals reflect then American way then I have been sadly misled. I always thought justice and fairness to be admirable features of America as a whole. When someone who has just a little too much admiration for Nazi (sorry, Prussian) Germany starts talking about traitors and dealing with enemies of the state I hope you will forgive me for believe his opinions to be non-representative.
As for Panzer. Well if his ideals reflect then American way then I have been sadly misled. I always thought justice and fairness to be admirable features of America as a whole. When someone who has just a little too much admiration for Nazi (sorry, Prussian) Germany starts talking about traitors and dealing with enemies of the state I hope you will forgive me for believe his opinions to be non-representative.
Crawl back under your bridge little troll.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Crawl back under your bridge little troll.
I love your contributions to debates Panzer. If I ever want to know the lowest common denominator, the base level of ignorance that the world is up against, I can come on here and read your opinions. Crawl back under your bridge little troll.
The idea that you are in favour of a bunch of illegal practices, the details of which are not known - simply because you believe (and belief is all you have) they might possibly be working for your security is blinkered, lazy ignorance.
It is this kind of intellectually-untroubled non-think that governments rely on. Hey Panzer - look bad man hurt you! We hurt people who might be bad men! Good Panzer - have a candy!
if this continues in this direction the Sir Clegane or I will lock this thread.
It would appear that some people would like this topic locked , perhaps the numerous posts that show thier stance to be baseless and contrary to what they claim is too much to handle
PS - now if your just wanting to talk about what the CIA is doing, I think they are completely in the wrong holding individuals without following the Laws of War and being open about the holding of these individuals.
That seems like a complete summation of the subject , based on facts at hand , legal precedent , moral obligation and the general public benefit and security issues .
Does anyone have anything at all that can contradict Redlegs post ?
It would appear that some people would like this topic locked , perhaps the numerous posts that show thier stance to be baseless and contrary to what they claim is too much to handle
PS - now if your just wanting to talk about what the CIA is doing, I think they are completely in the wrong holding individuals without following the Laws of War and being open about the holding of these individuals.
That seems like a complete summation of the subject , based on facts at hand , legal precedent , moral obligation and the general public benefit and security issues .
Does anyone have anything at all that can contradict Redlegs post ?
Not from me, I quite agree. Although as noted if the prisoners are not POWs (ie captured in a war zone) then civil justice should apply rather than military.
Originally Posted by Slyspy:
Not from me, I quite agree. Although as noted if the prisoners are not POWs (ie captured in a war zone) then civil justice should apply rather than military.
You're just wimps. Obviously the only way forward is to tolerate and encourage national security services to start acting as international extra-judicial secret police. Everyone knows the CIA are famous for their history of mistake-free integrity - why would we want to hamper this organisation by scrutinising their activities?Not from me, I quite agree. Although as noted if the prisoners are not POWs (ie captured in a war zone) then civil justice should apply rather than military.
[/sarcasm]
Originally Posted by :
I love your contributions to debates Panzer. If I ever want to know the lowest common denominator, the base level of ignorance that the world is up against, I can come on here and read your opinions.
The idea that you are in favour of a bunch of illegal practices, the details of which are not known - simply because you believe (and belief is all you have) they might possibly be working for your security is blinkered, lazy ignorance.
It is this kind of intellectually-untroubled non-think that governments rely on. Hey Panzer - look bad man hurt you! We hurt people who might be bad men! Good Panzer - have a candy!
Youre so cute, all sheltered and idealistic! I just want to wrap you in bubble-wrap and keep safe from reality! I love your contributions to debates Panzer. If I ever want to know the lowest common denominator, the base level of ignorance that the world is up against, I can come on here and read your opinions.
The idea that you are in favour of a bunch of illegal practices, the details of which are not known - simply because you believe (and belief is all you have) they might possibly be working for your security is blinkered, lazy ignorance.
It is this kind of intellectually-untroubled non-think that governments rely on. Hey Panzer - look bad man hurt you! We hurt people who might be bad men! Good Panzer - have a candy!
Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. You can take as much pride as you like in the fact that every international law and stipulation was followed to the fullest extent, but that does nothing to bring back those killed by terrorists or anybody at war with your nation.
Its easy to sit in your comfortable computer chair and scoff at the evil CIA, bla bla bla (
), but its a lot harder to have the responsibility of protecting 300 million people from mass murderers. I give the government just a little more leeway than the terrorists.. sorry. You need to take another sip of coffee, relax a little, and remember you have no basis for your little hissy fit. There is no need to be so self righteous about an issue that you admittedly dont have any real information about besides your deeming it "a bunch of illegal practices".
Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power.
Actually, agressive uses of power do nothing to stop "Muhammed" from detonating bombs in your cities.Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power.
Just ask the Israelis.
Or the Brits.
Or the Russians.
Little fella...
Mayhaps they haven't been using enough power?
Crazed Rabbit
Crazed Rabbit
Originally Posted by :
Actually, agressive uses of power do nothing to stop "Muhammed" from detonating bombs in your cities.
Really? How many have gone off in the US since we started taking aggressive action against AQ?Actually, agressive uses of power do nothing to stop "Muhammed" from detonating bombs in your cities.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Really? How many have gone off in the US since we started taking aggressive action against AQ?
Well, the track record from Iraq seems rather overwhelming to me......Really? How many have gone off in the US since we started taking aggressive action against AQ?
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. You can take as much pride as you like in the fact that every international law and stipulation was followed to the fullest extent, but that does nothing to bring back those killed by terrorists or anybody at war with your nation.
Nothing will make them go back, that's not the point of anything, just irrational rant. Force doesn't achieve anything, and power, is, like any other social measure, reproduced over and over for people like you. You're so Christian PJ, I wonder when you'll start to demonstrate that bliss of chrisitianity?Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. You can take as much pride as you like in the fact that every international law and stipulation was followed to the fullest extent, but that does nothing to bring back those killed by terrorists or anybody at war with your nation.
The power only is a problem because some people still beleive in this way in wich power is managed, and they beleive in alienation, they believe in the cheat before the law, or action before anything. But don't make the same mistake, in some point this has to change, better if it's in you, start to think before you act, perhaps some idea of what the things should be, and not what they're, could come up into your mind. Practice it, some day you'll achieve it...
Originally Posted by :
Its easy to sit in your comfortable computer chair and scoff at the evil CIA, bla bla bla ( ), but its a lot harder to have the responsibility of protecting 300 million people from mass murderers. I give the government just a little more leeway than the terrorists.. sorry.
Again Panzer, it seems that the idealist are you. Formally the CIA and every inteligence institutions, has had the simple and single purpose of secrecy. Thus you cannot know what they do, or with what purpose. Even if they do this that you love with all your heart, it doesn't mean a thing, you're constructing an hipotetical course of action for people that not even did anything in the future, or perhaps the CIA can see the future? They're humans PJ, if you let your love for intitutionalized power overtake your senses then you'll fall, or perhaps you already fell, in paranoia and hate-mongering. Organizations like the CIA, should not exist, period. Its easy to sit in your comfortable computer chair and scoff at the evil CIA, bla bla bla (
), but its a lot harder to have the responsibility of protecting 300 million people from mass murderers. I give the government just a little more leeway than the terrorists.. sorry.It seems to me that you're the idealist. Previous comments also confirm that, remember something like: "The USA was the only beacon of light in bla, bla, bla..."
Originally Posted by :
You need to take another sip of coffee, relax a little, and remember you have no basis for your little hissy fit. There is no need to be so self righteous about an issue that you admittedly dont have any real information about besides your deeming it "a bunch of illegal practices".
I'll put it simple for you PJ: Your form of government is either democratic or republican, either way, CIA activities go against that form of government, wich exist to provide the people and not the other way around. I just hope that you shall not suffer the inconveniences of tyrany.You need to take another sip of coffee, relax a little, and remember you have no basis for your little hissy fit. There is no need to be so self righteous about an issue that you admittedly dont have any real information about besides your deeming it "a bunch of illegal practices".
Originally Posted by :
Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella.
Well already answered. But perhaps I should retell it. You should argue about the "Should be", not the "Is".Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella.
Really? How many have gone off in the US since we started taking aggressive action against AQ?
The simpletons guide to military success and the projection of power . It hasn't rained this week so there will be no more rain .
How many Al-qaida bombs have ever gone off in the US ?....1
The simpletons guide to military success and the projection of power . It hasn't rained this week so there will be no more rain .How many Al-qaida bombs have ever gone off in the US ?....1
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.Originally Posted by Goofball:
Actually, agressive uses of power do nothing to stop "Muhammed" from detonating bombs in your cities.
Just ask the Israelis.
Or the Brits.
Or the Russians.
Little fella...
Really? How many have gone off in the US since we started taking aggressive action against AQ?Actually, agressive uses of power do nothing to stop "Muhammed" from detonating bombs in your cities.
Just ask the Israelis.
Or the Brits.
Or the Russians.
Little fella...
2) How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?
Originally Posted by Goofball:
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Originally Posted by :
2) How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?
There was one covered extensively in the media. But it wasn't on Television - other then the report. Pictures were circulated across the web concerning the beheading however.2) How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?
Originally Posted by Redleg:
Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.
Perhaps were those that are profiled just for being Iraqui? (really just curious)Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.
How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?
Several unfortunately , but none in Iraq .
The invasion/occupation has just given the bastards a new playground and a media spotlight .
Several unfortunately , but none in Iraq .
The invasion/occupation has just given the bastards a new playground and a media spotlight .
Originally Posted by Soulforged:
Perhaps were those that are profiled just for being Iraqui? (really just curious)
A different thread for that discussion - I have derailed enough threads this weekPerhaps were those that are profiled just for being Iraqui? (really just curious)
Originally Posted by Goofball
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Originally Posted by Redleg:
Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.
Even greater hyperbole equating all Arabs with terrorists. USA as well as the rest of the first world have many illegal immigrants of all backgrounds trying to get into the country.Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Youre so cute, all sheltered and idealistic! I just want to wrap you in bubble-wrap and keep safe from reality!
How many Muslim majority countries have you worked/lived in? Pop.Youre so cute, all sheltered and idealistic! I just want to wrap you in bubble-wrap and keep safe from reality!
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. You can take as much pride as you like in the fact that every international law and stipulation was followed to the fullest extent, but that does nothing to bring back those killed by terrorists or anybody at war with your nation.
The Japanese were using an aggresive amount of power and guess what was the reaction to that... Land of the Rising Sun got not one, but two of its own little Rising Suns to brighten up the day.Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. You can take as much pride as you like in the fact that every international law and stipulation was followed to the fullest extent, but that does nothing to bring back those killed by terrorists or anybody at war with your nation.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Its easy to sit in your comfortable computer chair and scoff at the evil CIA, bla bla bla ( ), but its a lot harder to have the responsibility of protecting 300 million people from mass murderers. I give the government just a little more leeway than the terrorists.. sorry.
That leeway may be the very catalyst causing the issues not resolving them. Bitch slap someone and they tend to bite back, it escalates...Its easy to sit in your comfortable computer chair and scoff at the evil CIA, bla bla bla (
), but its a lot harder to have the responsibility of protecting 300 million people from mass murderers. I give the government just a little more leeway than the terrorists.. sorry. Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
You need to take another sip of coffee, relax a little, and remember you have no basis for your little hissy fit. There is no need to be so self righteous about an issue that you admittedly dont have any real information about besides your deeming it "a bunch of illegal practices".
Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella.
Coffee is not a relaxantYou need to take another sip of coffee, relax a little, and remember you have no basis for your little hissy fit. There is no need to be so self righteous about an issue that you admittedly dont have any real information about besides your deeming it "a bunch of illegal practices".
Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Originally Posted by Goofball
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Even greater hyperbole equating all Arabs with terrorists. USA as well as the rest of the first world have many illegal immigrants of all backgrounds trying to get into the country.
Did I say terrorist or did I say arabs - now think very carefully now. Its not a hard thing to figure out. If I wanted to equate all arabs to terrorists I would of stated it.Originally Posted by Goofball
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Even greater hyperbole equating all Arabs with terrorists. USA as well as the rest of the first world have many illegal immigrants of all backgrounds trying to get into the country.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO