Ron Paulbarians Are At GOP's Gate...

[Dr.Drock]

Was Padilla tried in a court of law?

Case closed.............

And i'm sure if you were locked in jail for years without being able to contact a lawyer or get a trial you'd be a-ok with the process.


Government apologists are all over this forum.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Under the welfare/warfare state Constitution, the Right can be suspended whenever the Fuhrer is in the mood, right?

.

Nobody is making such a claim.

Again, you fail with logical fallacy.

BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy)
Fallacy List

'Dr. Drock is a 19 year old kid and doesn't know any better. What is your excuse?

I'm 27 and employed, unlike some of the lazy bums who post on this forum. Can you think of any?

You and your buddy are advocating suspending american's rights because a group of people not affiliated with a country have declared war on us.

Do you agree that's your stance or would you like to flip flop and make up a new one?

Who has said they were advocating suspending the rights of Americans? I have pointed out that in this one case (The only case any of you have came up with) that the courts overruled the governments handling of the mans rights. There is no flip flop, only facts...

 

[Dr.Drock]

Nobody is making such a claim.

Again, you fail with logical fallacy.

BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy)
Fallacy List

'Dr. Drock is a 19 year old kid and doesn't know any better. What is your excuse?

I'm 27 and employed, unlike some of the lazy bums who post on this forum. Can you think of any?

You and your buddy are advocating suspending american's rights because a group of people not affiliated with a country have declared war on us.

Do you agree that's your stance or would you like to flip flop and make up a new one?

Who has said they were advocating suspending the rights of Americans? I have pointed out that in this one case (The only case any of you have came up with) that the courts overruled the governments handling of the mans rights. There is no flip flop, only facts...

Then why were you excusing it by saying a group of people declared war on us?

 

[Contumacious]

Some of us understand the conditions under which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be suspended, and other are just whiny young Libertines.

Under the welfare/warfare state Constitution, the Right can be suspended whenever the Fuhrer is in the mood, right?

.

Nobody is making such a claim.

:

Well, in that case what are the FACTS which required that Mr Padilla's rights be suspended?!?!?!?!?!

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Under the welfare/warfare state Constitution, the Right can be suspended whenever the Fuhrer is in the mood, right?

.

Nobody is making such a claim.

:

Well, in that case what are the FACTS which required that Mr Padilla's rights be suspended?!?!?!?!?!

.

the fact that is an enemy combatant. that's all you need, really. Rights are for criminals. He isn't a criminal. The Left wants to treat him like one, of course.

 

[Contumacious]

Nobody is making such a claim.

:

Well, in that case what are the FACTS which required that Mr Padilla's rights be suspended?!?!?!?!?!

.

the fact that is an enemy combatant. that's all you need, really. Rights are for criminals. He isn't a criminal. The Left wants to treat him like one, of course.

Shalom

I see.

So you don't know the difference between a statement of fact and a conclusion?!?!?!?!?

.

Y

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'm 27 and employed, unlike some of the lazy bums who post on this forum. Can you think of any?

You and your buddy are advocating suspending american's rights because a group of people not affiliated with a country have declared war on us.

Do you agree that's your stance or would you like to flip flop and make up a new one?

Who has said they were advocating suspending the rights of Americans? I have pointed out that in this one case (The only case any of you have came up with) that the courts overruled the governments handling of the mans rights. There is no flip flop, only facts...

Then why were you excusing it by saying a group of people declared war on us?

That is not an excuse. If you read all my posts you will see where I pointed out that Bush and Rumsfeld were wrong in the way they handled him and that the courts told them so..... Doesn't mean he isn't guilty as hell....

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, in that case what are the FACTS which required that Mr Padilla's rights be suspended?!?!?!?!?!

.

the fact that is an enemy combatant. that's all you need, really. Rights are for criminals. He isn't a criminal. The Left wants to treat him like one, of course.

Shalom

I see.

So you don't know the difference between a statement of fact and a conclusion?!?!?!?!?

.

Y

You think it's not a fact that he is an enemy combatant? And is there a dichotomy between a fact and a conclusion?
You aren't making the narco's shine. If I were a Paul supporter I'd be cringing to be thought of in the same group as you, Herr Oberst.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Who has said they were advocating suspending the rights of Americans? I have pointed out that in this one case (The only case any of you have came up with) that the courts overruled the governments handling of the mans rights. There is no flip flop, only facts...

Then why were you excusing it by saying a group of people declared war on us?

That is not an excuse. If you read all my posts you will see where I pointed out that Bush and Rumsfeld were wrong in the way they handled him and that the courts told them so..... Doesn't mean he isn't guilty as hell....

Well said, I agree.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then why were you excusing it by saying a group of people declared war on us?

That is not an excuse. If you read all my posts you will see where I pointed out that Bush and Rumsfeld were wrong in the way they handled him and that the courts told them so..... Doesn't mean he isn't guilty as hell....

Well said, I agree.

I disagree.
The Bush Administration was handed a shit sandwich. It was a new, unexplored area of law. Previously wars were conducted by national entitites with clear borders, etc. This was a new kind of war, waged by a trans-national group. It isn't a crime syndicate, which we have experience with. And it isn't a traditional war. ANd it isn't a guerrilla war. So how to deal with it.
So they made their best call on protecting people from terrorism. And sometimes they will make mistakes on it.
Personally I dont think it was a mistake and they were absolutely right. The Constitution is not a roving shield to protect people wherever and under whatever circumstances they might be. It is clearly for civilians. And Padilla is not quite in that category.

 

[paulitician]

The GOP just got Neoconned again. Good luck with the Big Government Liberal Mormon. The GOP is gonna need an awful lot of it to win with that stiff.

 

[Contumacious]

the fact that is an enemy combatant. that's all you need, really. Rights are for criminals. He isn't a criminal. The Left wants to treat him like one, of course.

Shalom

I see.

So you don't know the difference between a statement of fact and a conclusion?!?!?!?!?

.

Y

You think it's not a fact that he is an enemy combatant? And is there a dichotomy between a fact and a conclusion?
You aren't making the narco's shine. If I were a Paul supporter I'd be cringing to be thought of in the same group as you, Herr Oberst.

Low Life Scumbag, Sir:

During a hearing on 23 October 2008 US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon commented on the ambiguity of the term "enemy combatant".[9]

Farah Stockman, writing in the Boston Globe, quoted Leon's remarks characterizing him as having "lashed out" at Congress and the Supreme Court for leaving the term undefined:

**** you now.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Who has said they were advocating suspending the rights of Americans? I have pointed out that in this one case (The only case any of you have came up with) that the courts overruled the governments handling of the mans rights. There is no flip flop, only facts...

Then why were you excusing it by saying a group of people declared war on us?

That is not an excuse. If you read all my posts you will see where I pointed out that Bush and Rumsfeld were wrong in the way they handled him and that the courts told them so..... Doesn't mean he isn't guilty as hell....

Mr Dumb Ass, Sir:

Guilty as hell of what?!?!?!?

The Bush Administration's Torture of U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla

The Government's indictment made no mention of the flamboyant allegation they originally trumpeted to justify his lawless incarceration – that he was a "Dirty Bomber" attempting to detonate a radiological bomb in an American city (because the "evidence" for that accusation was itself procured by torture and was therefore unreliable and unusable). Instead, the indictment contained only the vaguest and most generic terrorism allegations. Since then, the federal judge presiding over Padilla's case (in the Southern District of Florida) has repeatedly expressed skepticism over the Government's case against him and has, on several occasions, admonished them to provide more specific information setting forth exactly what Padilla is alleged to have done."

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Shalom

I see.

So you don't know the difference between a statement of fact and a conclusion?!?!?!?!?

.

Y

You think it's not a fact that he is an enemy combatant? And is there a dichotomy between a fact and a conclusion?
You aren't making the narco's shine. If I were a Paul supporter I'd be cringing to be thought of in the same group as you, Herr Oberst.

Low Life Scumbag, Sir:

During a hearing on 23 October 2008 US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon commented on the ambiguity of the term "enemy combatant".[9]

Farah Stockman, writing in the Boston Globe, quoted Leon's remarks characterizing him as having "lashed out" at Congress and the Supreme Court for leaving the term undefined:

**** you now.

.

Mr Foul-Mouthed Anti-Semite Peter-Puffer, Sir:
You have failed to refute the idea that Padilla is an enemy combatant. Come back when you have something resembling proof so I can verbally assault you again.

 

[Contumacious]

You think it's not a fact that he is an enemy combatant? And is there a dichotomy between a fact and a conclusion?
You aren't making the narco's shine. If I were a Paul supporter I'd be cringing to be thought of in the same group as you, Herr Oberst.

Low Life Scumbag, Sir:

During a hearing on 23 October 2008 US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon commented on the ambiguity of the term "enemy combatant".[9]

Farah Stockman, writing in the Boston Globe, quoted Leon's remarks characterizing him as having "lashed out" at Congress and the Supreme Court for leaving the term undefined:

**** you now.

.

Mr Foul-Mouthed Anti-Semite Peter-Puffer, Sir:
You have failed to refute the idea that Padilla is an enemy combatant.

Again, retardo, how the **** is he guilty of something that is not statutorily defined?

Come back when you have something resembling proof so I can verbally assault you again

.

 

[SFC Ollie]

That is not an excuse. If you read all my posts you will see where I pointed out that Bush and Rumsfeld were wrong in the way they handled him and that the courts told them so..... Doesn't mean he isn't guilty as hell....

Well said, I agree.

I disagree.
The Bush Administration was handed a shit sandwich. It was a new, unexplored area of law. Previously wars were conducted by national entitites with clear borders, etc. This was a new kind of war, waged by a trans-national group. It isn't a crime syndicate, which we have experience with. And it isn't a traditional war. ANd it isn't a guerrilla war. So how to deal with it.
So they made their best call on protecting people from terrorism. And sometimes they will make mistakes on it.
Personally I dont think it was a mistake and they were absolutely right. The Constitution is not a roving shield to protect people wherever and under whatever circumstances they might be. It is clearly for civilians. And Padilla is not quite in that category.

If they would have picked him up overseas he probably would have lost his rights, but they allowed him to return to the states before they arrested him. That was their first mistake. Within the US as a citizen you have your rights and the courts did straighten that out. Bush (actually probably Rumsfeld) blew it. But I have doubts that he was ever tortured. And he is in jail for probably longer than I'll be here......If he lives that long.... But again, that's not really what this thread was about, is it?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Then why were you excusing it by saying a group of people declared war on us?

That is not an excuse. If you read all my posts you will see where I pointed out that Bush and Rumsfeld were wrong in the way they handled him and that the courts told them so..... Doesn't mean he isn't guilty as hell....

Mr Dumb Ass, Sir:

Guilty as hell of what?!?!?!?

The Bush Administration's Torture of U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla

The Government's indictment made no mention of the flamboyant allegation they originally trumpeted to justify his lawless incarceration – that he was a "Dirty Bomber" attempting to detonate a radiological bomb in an American city (because the "evidence" for that accusation was itself procured by torture and was therefore unreliable and unusable). Instead, the indictment contained only the vaguest and most generic terrorism allegations. Since then, the federal judge presiding over Padilla's case (in the Southern District of Florida) has repeatedly expressed skepticism over the Government's case against him and has, on several occasions, admonished them to provide more specific information setting forth exactly what Padilla is alleged to have done."

.

Take it to a conspiracy thread......................
Oh, and **** off..........

 

[The Rabbi]

Low Life Scumbag, Sir:

During a hearing on 23 October 2008 US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon commented on the ambiguity of the term "enemy combatant".[9]

Farah Stockman, writing in the Boston Globe, quoted Leon's remarks characterizing him as having "lashed out" at Congress and the Supreme Court for leaving the term undefined:

**** you now.

.

Mr Foul-Mouthed Anti-Semite Peter-Puffer, Sir:
You have failed to refute the idea that Padilla is an enemy combatant.

Again, retardo, how the **** is he guilty of something that is not statutorily defined?

Come back when you have something resembling proof so I can verbally assault you again

.

Mr. Take-It-In-The-Ass-From-Camels, Sir:
It is not a crime to be an enemy combatant. It is not a criminal matter at all.

 

[paulitician]

I dare Toto and the other Ron Paul haters to go to these guys faces and tell them they are delusional.He'll backtrack like he always does and say something like -"Thats not what I meant." or something like that ,but he does.

RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS - YouTube

Adam Kokesh - Letter to Obama - YouTube

Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops Video Compilation Song Dedication.avi - YouTube

 

[The Rabbi]

I dare Toto and the other Ron Paul haters to go to these guys faces and tell them they are delusional.He'll backtrack like he always does and say something like -"Thats not what I meant." or something like that ,but he does.

RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS - YouTube

Adam Kokesh - Letter to Obama - YouTube

Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops Video Compilation Song Dedication.avi - YouTube

And the wookie-suiters applaud.