Campy

Citizenry had already been rendered irrelavent. The rights they seek have been ruled by US tradition and US law to apply to all people. Entirely not true. Are you unaware that innocent people are being detained? Or that innocent people have already been beaten to death? What if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and YOU were sent to Gitmo? Does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" entirely escape you?

That must stem from a bigoted perspective because it certainly doesn't stem from a historical one.

I'm aware of that Sup Ct ruling, but they really haven't been granted full access to counsel. "Access to counsel" implies certain rights and privileges offered to the defendant and counsel as provided by law. Of course, a person would have to actually be charged with a crime before he becomes a defendant, but lest I digress. According to existing law, confidentiality is a right critical to proper legal representation, but just as the Sup Ct was forced to rein in the executive by allowing counsel to visit with detainees, the only way that the rights of the innocent will truly be protected is more reining-in of the current executive. This isn't a cheap-shot at AD or anyone else, but I am surprised that more people of the Libertarian mindset aren't up in arms about this. According to US tradition and law, these are basic rights that apply all people . We are a nation of laws, and these basic rights cannot arbitrarily be eliminated or suspended by the executive. Yet, that is exactly what has happened at Gitmo. Think about it.

I have no doubt that there are a lot of people at Gitmo who either have, or were planning to, kill Americans. I also have no doubt that a lot of people there are only guilty of being born in Iraq, or having legitimate business in Iraq, and then being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those are the people I'm concerned with. Without due process, innocent people are getting screwed. They have not been granted access to counsel, they have been able to let their families know that they're alive, they have not been able to their own pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Frankly, that's un-American. We're not Red China. We're not the Soviet Union. I always believed we were better than that, and I bet you did too.

When does that start?

Sorry for not being clearer. What I meant was that the compromise may not be lasting very long because on Friday, Frist plans on calling for an end to debate and an immediate vote (which is referred to as cloture) on one of the two nominees (William Myers) whose name was supposed to be withdrawn by the GOP (the other is Henry Saad).

Not with tactics like this... According to today's Congress Daily: "Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks."

That's what I gathered too. "While the Browns intend to enforce their financial options, doing so could be a tricky maneuver, in terms of attempting to not alienate a player they still feel is a significant part of their program. The team will seek to avoid acrimony, but that might not be easy, even given the specific language built into the contract."

I sure didn't, and I wish I had - provided they allow listener call-ins. They say ignorance is different than being stupid. Ignorance means either misinformed or uninformed, but stupid is forever. He's gotta be stupid.

That explains his selection of that username anyway.

And you say I'm grabbing at straws?

I wasn't interpretating his post to mean that innocent Ahmed the sheep herder was somehow in touch with American attorneys before he was rounded up for being at the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Sorry for taking so long to respond - I was looking for the video Hammer mentioned http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=24648&st=0. And I couldn't even find it, or at least not the version he talked about. Anyway, I wasn't 100% spot-on on attributing it to the 14th, but it has virtually the same effect and that must've been where I drew the parallel in my mind. Either way, the 14th as it's written is still the crux of it to me. Rasul et al v Bush et al. To summarize, it states that the Gitmo detainees possess the same rights as any other person (not citizen, but person) held against their will. In this case, the specific right is Habeus Corpus. They also quoted a 1953 opinion by Justice Robert Jackson: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runneymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

I was going to post "Germans?" but I realized that some of our younger Bills fans may not know the next line was "Shh... He's on a roll."

Fit the storyline? You mean like storyline in the "World According to the Pentagon" or "Desperate Rumsfelds?" Yeah, they always tell the truth. Uhmm... The whole Fourteenth Ammendment thingy which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Supreme Court has ruled that "within its jurisdiction" includes any person, citizen or otherwise, detained by the United States, be it here or overseas. We? You hearing voices in your head again? Again, detaining innocents (much less beating them to death) goes against the very ideals of our Republic. Wrong. Several times I've changed my opinion based upon new information or new perspectives. The problem in this case is that I wll not take a perspective where we selectively grant rights, and I have yet to see information strong enough to make me abandon (or even suspend) our country's ideals. No, it's not. It's a military action, but war hasn'y been declared. If it was a declared war, I wouldn't have a problem with the detainees at Gitmo because they'd be POWs. But Congress hasn't made a Declaration of War in 64 years. That's the last time we were at war. I know, it sounds like a matter of semantics, but it's not. We are a nation of laws, and I'm not comfortable with the government arbitrarily suspending individual's rights when it's convenient or easy. With a Declaration of War, mechanisms are in place to do what they're doing now, but without a Declaration of War, the government is breaking the law. I mean, if we're willing to suspend the 14th Ammendment at the whim of the leaders of this country, what's to stop them from doing the same with the First Ammendment? Or the Second Ammendment? Or any of the Ammendments?

A-fricken-men!

Oh, well OK then. We'll just use the governments of the Mid-East and Asia as the the measuring stick. Constitution shmonstituion One of things that makes us different than them is that the US does have due process, in fact it is one of the major reasons that the American colonies entered in a revolution against England. Damn Paul, you're not even close. They have not been allowed contact with the outside world. Their families don't know if they're dead or alive, and they have been denied counsel.

I for one wish they'd explain how under current law the detainees are being denied due process, afterall, not all of them are terrorists, or at least they weren't when they went in. There's no telling how much animosity toward the US an innocent man would have if he were illegally detained for 3,4,5 or however many years it'll be. If he didn't maintain enough animosity to be a terrorist beforehand, he very well may after.

Your post reminded me of the first time I saw it. It was sans President and they were doing touch-and-go's every afternoon one summer - and as I worked outside at the time, I saw it A LOT. I don't know what power plant it uses, but AF1 has some serious power, more so than your standard commercial jetliner. I noticed its rapid elevation at relatively slow air speeds and then very quickly rolling into a bank. It was relatively nimble considering it was essentially a jetliner. But the first time I saw it, it hit me like a sailor's retirement ceremony - a unique symbol of something much bigger than myself - It gave me reason to pause.

That does change things a bit, doesn't it? When the author wrote "war vets," I assumed they were veterans of the last declared war in which the United States participated in. I didn't realize the author found the terms "war vets" and "activity duty vets" to be synonymous. Thanks to you, AD, and VA for pointing out the author's misrepresentation.

I didn't read the linked article in this thread, but the one I did read prior to this thread being posted did say that the yearbooks were being re-printed. If the article you read is accurate in that regard, it doesn't change my opinion on whether it was racially motivated or not, but it certainly makes it much more regretable.

To what does "away game" refer?

I'm not drawing any conclusions. I am wondering what in the world you meant. Not (currently) owning a firearm and never having enlisted in the military, I'm curious what the relationship between the two might be because I'm not seeing how the two could be related.

I'm kinda' hoping that the Black Rock is more relevant than just providing a munitions cache. It looked like several of the rungs on the ladder inside the hatch were broken and/or missing and it looks like a helluva' long way down. I wonder who's going to be going down there. Locke?