See above.

After wading through all those spelling errors, I was finally able to decipher what you were trying to say, to a point, that is. I have no idea what this reference to 'slon' is, but evidently you do and I guess that's all that matters.

Of course you wouldn't say anything about the Constitution. You don't agree with it and apparently don't know too much about it at all. You can't even see how it directly applies to your moronic views of authoritarianism and centralized power in government. I've never known an American with such views.

Again, if you don't like being challenged on your un-American (or megalomaniac wannabe) views (centralized power in government and authoritarianism), don't express them. It's called personal accountability. Most grown-ups know a bit about that. Tossing a hissy fit when challenged on such views does little for your selling of any rationality you think you have.

TRight, there you go. You've had the last word. I won't counter anything you've said, or make any rebuttal, and now everyone else can continue on debating.

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

Family member who were arrested for conspiring with terrorist organizations and planning attacks against Americans, like this guy, should be arrested.

No; in fact, I’m saying the complete opposite. I’ve been arguing AGAINST giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt.

It isn’t as stupid as dismissing the evidence out-of-hand, as you’re doing.

Yes; I’m entirely sure you haven’t yet demonstrated a single right that has been trampled by the Patriot Act, despite requests in pretty much every one of my responses, and despite your elusive “guaranteed loss of freedom”.

WTF are you talking about??? We weren't discussing determining guilt or innocence, we were talking about determining citizenship status.

Probably not, you just stopped short of the relevant section;

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

Earlier you said that mere association would be enough in some cases, no?I was referring to the president/government.

"So we should let known liars tell us that what they're doing is completely right, with no evidence to back it up, and we should accept it as fact? Yes, that is what you're saying."I didn't dismiss it out-of-hand. I analyzed it and saw that the only way it could support your position is if one engages in correlation=causation reasoning. And that is a fallacy.Not what I asked. I said that you said:

"I think they can only detain non-citizens under the PA"

which kind of shows that you agree with me, no?

And you denied it. Then I asked if you were sure, linking to the post in which you said it. Well, are you sure of that? Are you sure you didn't say it? Because it says it right there.Maybe it's time you put up or shut up:

Oh, so now you think every illegal alien deserves his day in court before we can touch them? What a difference a couple of months make.

So, what is the difference? Where, in the past, have I said they should be sent to labor camps without a trial?

Note that I already provided a post to you where I said:

"They should be placed into labor camps" - addresses said labor camps

and

"People should also not be deported/imprisoned unless proven to be illegal immigrants" - addresses the required trial prior to being imprisoned (in a labor camp or prison)/deported.They refer to judicial review, meaning that there is apparently no guarantee of a trial.

Not even close.

Too bad, you almost have a decent point.

This is rich!!! After committing numerous logical fallacies, including affirming the consequent (some government employees lie, therefore anyone in the government is going to lie) and a couple of strawmen (your idiocy about the government killing people and about your taking a dump) now you want to worry about loci fallacies!?! You are too rich. At least I have a preponderance of evidence to back up my position.

And it goes without saying, but you have yet to find a right that has been diminished by the PA, despite your “guarantee that your rights have been reduced”.

Nope, that’s not what I said either. If you’re going to quote me, it would be prudent for you to post what I actually said; misrepresenting what I posted will get you into trouble. The exchange was as follows;

You were questioning that fact that relevant section applies only to aliens. If you changed your mind to agreeing with me that the PA does not allow indefinite detention of US citizens without trial, you never stated it.

I can’t prove a negative, Slon (argumentum ad ignorantiam, there’s another logical fallacy for you). You’ve before never stated “proven to be illegals” requires an actual trial. ICE deports illegals all the time without going thru the motions of having an actual trial, and you’ve NEVER stated you have a problem with that. Considering you’ve already stated you advocate shipping children of illegal aliens to Antarctica without their parents, or a trial, your new-found compassion for illegals appears far less than genuine and more mere face-saving.

Doesn’t matter, it’s still their day in court, which is more than you've stated the children of illegal aliens deserve.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

So you feel that being associated with al-Qaeda (like being a member) should not be enough to be arrested, right?Why are you dodging?

"So we should let known liars tell us that what they're doing is completely right, with no evidence to back it up, and we should accept it as fact? Yes, that is what you're saying."Nope, I am referring to Bush and Obama, two proven liars. try again.The former was not a claim I made about the government, but a "what if" question for you. The latter was an analogy ridiculing your correlation = causation reasoning. I'm glad you agree it's stupid. Perhaps you will be able to move on from that kind of "logic."Only if you believe that correlation = causation.What do you mean? I already posted the text of the PA and two sources (one a uni) that agree with me.What does my changing my mind or not have to do with what you said?

"I think they can only detain non-citizens under the PA"

Is that not a complete thought? Why is it dependent on whether or not I agree with you?Probably because I figured that the people reading my posts were remotely sensible. Once again, where the hell else would they be proven to be guilty of illegal immigration?I'm sure there are plenty of things that I have a problem with which I have not posted specifically on this forum. Is that your argument? The assumption that because I have not posted it here that I do not have a problem with it? Where did I say "without a trial" or its equivalent?Yes, it does matter. The only time it wouldn't matter is if that "day in court" resulted dismissal and if they are free to leave afterward.I've stated that the children of illegals do not deserve their day in court? Where?

Oh right, since I didn't specifically say that they should be given a trial, it obviously means I don't think they should have one. Similarly, since I mentioned bank robberies in that thread without mentioning a trial in the same post, I must not think that anyone accused of being a bank robber should be given a trial. I obviously think they should be imprisoned immediately.

It depends on whether or not the associations break any laws.

Not dodging anything, I’ve already answered this question directly. I’ve been arguing AGAINST giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt.

Bush and Obama aren’t the investigators on the cases in which the PA is being employed. Nope, you’re referring to law enforcement agents. I trust those agents far more than al Qaeda terrorists, who are the real proven liars.

I know what you posted, and they’re the very definition of a strawman logical fallacy; a definition you should be well acquainted with. Seeing as you rely so heavily on them in your posts here, perhaps you’d like to move on from that. Oh well, I guess not; there’s another one further down in this very post.

Where are you getting this??? I never stated correlation = causation, I stated there’s a very strong correlation that only an idiot would dismiss.

So now you’re an alien again?? What you posted has no affect on US citizens.

Taken out of context, it’s intentionally misleading. It would be like me quoting you as saying “we should let the government do whatever it wants”.

They can be proven to be guilty of illegal immigration anywhere. If they can’t come up with ID or a valid Visa, they’re illegal. You used to know this back when you came up with a method of sending children to Antarctica ousting and people with expired Visas that specifically avoided sentencing.

There’s another reason people don’t put things in their posts here, a far more applicable reason in this instance; that’s because they really don’t mean it, because they’re desperately trying to run away from their past statements. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you care about someone’s right to a trial when don’t give a shit about their right to life??? You said, “That is why we are not sentencing the child, simply ousting it, much like you would oust someone with an expired visa.” What kind of trial that ends in deportation doesn’t involve a sentence, particularly when it ends in deportation to the most hostile environment on earth. You never cared about illegal aliens getting a trial until you started losing this argument; your past statements betray you.

Another strawman, what a suprise. Save the bales! Slon, stick to the topic.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

*ahem*


In a 16-10 party-line vote on Nov. 5, the House Committee on the Judiciary approved H.R. 3845, the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009.

Among the most touted of the reforms provided by the bill, H.R. 3845 would permit the so-called “lone wolf” provision to sunset. This authority removed the requirement that an individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under criminal surveillance procedures.
House Judiciary Committee Approves Strong PATRIOT Act Reform | OMB Watch

Apparently the present admin. wanted to keep it, good for them but congress thought different.

I’d say Hasan fits the lone wolf bill? Yes? No?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

That's what I'm asking. Should being an al-Qaeda member, in and of itself, be illegal. In other words, should it break any laws/should such laws exist?First of all, you're using something that must be proven as a premise. You're assuming that we are in a place the decision must be made between believing proven terrorists or agents. However, if what they are usually doing in regard to terrorists is trying to determine if they are terrorists, then the choice would be between believing the agents or believing those they merely accused of terrorism.

Secondly, yes, we are talking about upper leadership, or at least we were when I said this. Take a look at post #119:

You said:

Not at all; my position is that, lacking access to the classified portions of the investigations, it’s best to defer judgment to those who actually have access and can make an accurate evaluation. You know, people like Obama, who made a quick 180° in the issue once he was actually privy to everything involved.

I replied to that quote segment:

So we should let known liars tell us that what they're doing is completely right, with no evidence to back it up, and we should accept it as fact? Yes, that is what you're saying.

How has the Patriot Act affected you?
If you used a correlation = causation fallacy, and I ridiculed it by jokingly adding my own, you feel that falls under the definition of a logical fallacy (straw man)?Are you saying that nobody had ever been arrested for trying to plant a bomb prior to the PA or that arrests per attempt were very low relative to what we have had under the PA?

And why are you unwilling to delve into the incidents? For example, let's say we have that incident that included the passengers and security that stopped the guy:

"Reid, a British citizen of Anglo-Jamaican heritage who converted to Islam in prison, hid explosives inside the soles of his shoes before boarding American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. He was apprehended on board by flight attendants and passengers after trying to light the fuse with a match."

Okay, so you're trying to say that there is strong correlation (not to be dismissed) between the creation of PA and acts like this being stopped.

Fine. So how exactly could the PA have led to the stopping of this act? Is it even possible? Flight attendants and passengers stopped him. They detected him because he was trying to light the fuse. Where could the PA possibly have become involved to stop this from happening?Your point being? That trampling on the rights of legal, non-citizen residents is fine?And I disagree that what I quoted you saying is intentionally misleading. I see a complete thought written by you. One that is not immediately modified by the surrounding parts of the post.

What else did you write in that post that modifies it?And when I say "trial," I really mean a trial where they throw them into a lake to drown to determine if they are evil (if the lake will not accept them and they float).

Come on, you're grasping at straws. At best, I didn't specify whether they should be given a trial, and that's if you really do some stretching and assume that I meant "proven anywhere" by "proven."

Also, I "used to know this?" Did I "know" it or did I say it?I see. So what I posted in that thread (was it 2007?), I posted because I am now trying to get away from it?Ah, I see what I meant now.

People who sell drugs, assuming they are not committing other crimes like false advertising or contract infringement (lying on labels, for instance), should not be jailed. People who cross our national border illegal should.

The point is that the kids have already been proven to not be legally in the country. This occurred when their parents (with the kids there) were proven to be illegal. If they had a trial to prove the parents illegal and determined that the kids were illegally there, what is the point of having another trial to prove what has already been proven?

If a convicted terrorist is being released after time served (his punishment) and nobody wants him, I don't mind dropping him off at the border or the next logical place (this would be neither punishment nor sentencing). That's really what that thread dealt with and I think you're just going back a couple of years (as opposed to a couple of months as you said earlier) to try and fish for new evidence for your ruined earlier attempt to use a thread where I even said "proven."

You brought it up. Your reasoning appears to be that, if I didn't mention trials specifically when discussing a crime, then it must mean that I do not support giving those accused of such a crime a trial.

This is the type of thing that people opposed to the Patriot Act and places like GitMo always tend to loose sight of both what is going on, and what the international laws are in reguards to people like this.

Under International Law, there is a legal term for people that enter another country illegally for the purposes of espionage and sabotage. It is the same legal term for either a person caught under arms who wears civilian clothing, or a person who fights a war while not wearing a uniform or some other signifier that they are a combatant.

That word is "Spy".

And under all International Laws (including the Geneva Convention), they are eligable to be executed. They have no protections, and are not entitled to a trial. The only thing required is that a hearing be held to determine if they did what is claimed.

At that point they can be summarily shot or hung.

A spy is not a warrior. They are not an "enemy combatant". They are not even a "partaisan fighter".

Oh, and they themselves do not follow the Geneva Conventions.

Doesn't matter. The US government should be required to try those accused before they are punished. The whole "spy" and "enemy combatant" bullshit is just a term used to avoid trying criminals. If you enter the country to commit sabotage, that's called vandalism/destruction of property. Treat them like criminals.

An alien, by it's very nature, is not a citizen of the United States. And I for one see no reason to treat them as such. And International Law supports me in this matter.

Our country is the only one that goes out of it's way and bends over backwards not only for legal, but for illegal aliens. They are entitled to basic human rights. They are entitled to hearings. They are not, however, entitled to all of the rights and privlidges of a citizen of this country.

And if you think I am being extreme, look at some other countries. Like Japan, where a non-citizen can't even bring a Japanese Citizen into court. Our nation bends over backwards to treat it's non-citizens as if they were citizens, even though they have no right to such treatment.

And that is what caused the creations like GitMo, where they were not brought into the US.

In the US, those accused of crimes are generally tried. It doesn't matter that they are not citizens. Just because they are non-citizens does not mean we can throw them in prison due to a mere accusation. The same should apply to other crimes.You're right. They cannot vote, for example. However, they are still generally entitled to trials before they are thrown in prison.What Japan does is not relevant. Sorry.Your argument appears to be based on the premise that non-citizens have fewer rights than citizens. You then use this and say, "therefore, they should have even fewer rights." This is a stupid way to approach this and I hope you realize this.

It has not affected me at all, but I wish it had worked well enough to have Maj. Hasan thrown in jail before he murdered 13 people!

__________________
"I am no Martin Luther King or Ghandi motherfucker. I have no idea what those guys were talking about. You spit on my ass, I will knock you out. No motherfucking marching and singing in the street for me." - Jim Brown, NFL Hall-of-Famer and Cleveland Browns running back, 1957-1965