detention

[steve dave]

[LickNeckey]

thank god i don't eat at TGI Fridays

[AbeFroman]

Really confused here. All the TGI Friday's closed down.

Or were they detained? 

[Dugout DickStone]

Really confused here. All the TGI Friday's closed down.

Or were they detained? 

They were "disappeared"

[DQ12]

Like these.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Obama is a War Criminal, Impeach Him!!!  All those complicit are just as guilty!!!


   <--- Libtard

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

These foreigners captured overseas and imprisoned overseas have Constitutional Rights!!!!!!

[mortons toe]

FSD, this is a perfect example of the hypocrisy that is rampant in DC, especially among libs... Constitutional rights, Miranda rights, blah blah blah... 

[DQ12]

I like when FSD argues with whoever it is he's arguing against.

Tell'em, FSD!

[ednksu]

serious question:
How does this provision of the NDAA not violate the ruling from Hamdi v Rumsfeld?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Italics indicate sarcasm. 

1.  Pointing out the outrage from the left that miraculously disappeared in Nov. 2008, despite nothing changing. 

2.  Pointing out how idiotic the Constitutional argument is re: detainees/prisoners/torturees/whateverthefuckyouwanttocallthem.  It's one thing to argue we should expect the same Constitutional principles to apply to detainees, it's another to say the Constitution actually applies to them.  Military personnel don't enjoy the same Constitutional rights as US Citizens, and this doesn't seem to bother the left at all.

Unprincipled partisan beliefs and the flat out ignorance that prevails among 99% of the US population make politics unbearable.  The liberal posters on this board are a microcosm of how stupid and irrational the masses really are.  The unwillingness on their part to engage in even the slightest form of independent thought is frightening.  Cynicism sucks, but what are we left with?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

serious question:
How does this provision of the NDAA not violate the ruling from Hamdi v Rumsfeld?

Translation:  I read on article on HuffPost written by a non-attorney unpaid liberal blogger, and have my incoherent and unresearched talking points prepared.  I've never read the opinion in Hamdi, nor any of the concurring or dissenting opinions.  I couldn't begin to locate the provision I'm speaking of in the NDAA, nor do I know if it exists.  I am the Libtardbot 6000 v.3.1


It should be note that Liberal antagonists, Scalia and Thomas dissented.

[ednksu]

serious question:
How does this provision of the NDAA not violate the ruling from Hamdi v Rumsfeld?

Translation:  I read on article on HuffPost written by a non-attorney unpaid liberal blogger, and have my incoherent and unresearched talking points prepared.  I've never read the opinion in Hamdi, nor any of the concurring or dissenting opinions.  I couldn't begin to locate the provision I'm speaking of in the NDAA, nor do I know if it exists.  I am the Libtardbot 6000 v.3.1


It should be note that Liberal antagonists, Scalia and Thomas dissented.

You've proven over and over again that you have little understanding of our government and constitution so your opinion is moot in my view.  I have yet to read any source, blog, article or summary that even mentions Hamdi.

Also if anyone wants to read the Scalia dissent it is absolutely brilliant.  One of the best defenses of American civil liberties I've read.  He rebukes the logic of the majority reaching back to Ex Parte Milligan to castigate the majority of hindering the application of civil rights. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

You've proven over and over again that you have little understanding of our government and constitution so your opinion is moot in my view. 

I find this statement both ironic and anecdotal.