Americans seeking immigration data jam Canadian website

[Slartibartfast]

Good Riddance, more room for me. Sreiously these people need to get a hold of themselves. The world isn't over you can try again in 4 years.

They can still vote while living in Canada. They can move back when the shit stops.

[Perinquus]

Overreacting according to what objective standard? Please, by all means, enlighten us on what constitutes an acceptable reason to emigrate. Are you saying that no one should ever emigrate for any reason other than crushing persecution?

Of course not! Leaving because you had a better job waiting for you would be a great reason. Leaving to marry someone in that country would be another reason. Leaving because you just visited the country before and fell in love with the place might be a god reason. Hell, I've toyed with the idea of moving to Ireland for that very reason. But what these people have made abundantly clear is that they hate George Bush, resent the fact that he got elected, and are now bleating about how terrible it is here in the States, and they want to emigrate to another country. I'm sorry, but things are going to have to get a lot worse here before that looks to me like anything but an overreaction by people who got their baloon popped during the election. When I said as much in an earlier post, you immediately sneered at me and opined that maybe they didn't want their kids raised in an atmosphere of intolerance. As I said: what intolerance? What there is isn't even remotely as awful as you are making it out to be. The recent defense of marriage acts notwithstanding.

That is intolerance, dumb-ass. Perhaps it is not enough intolerance for you to decide that it's time to leave, but for some people, maybe it is. I say again: upon what basis do you declare that their standard of intolerance is less valid than yours? What objective standard of intolerance do you believe to be in place here?

Since one's perception of intolerance is a fairly subjective thing, you are asking for the impossible. Maybe they do consider it enough to move, but why should hold them in any less disdain than I hold the people who get offended at every little thing these days? You know the kind I mean, I'm sure you've met some of them - people with chips on their shoulders, or people with no sense of humor, people who are quick to throw the race card down if they get bent out of shape. Some people get offended when they have damn good reason to. Others are unreasonable people who get belligerent over trivial things. But what objective standard can you point to to define what reasonable grounds for offense are? Some things don't admit of objective standards Mike, and you know it. When you are talking about matters of human perception and emotion, practically nothing does, and you know that too. So why are you asking me for something it is impossible to give?

What we do in cases like this is apply the "reasonable person" test. Is it something that would lead a reasonable person to believe X? Or, "what would a reasonable person do in this case?" We have to do this with all kinds of issues obscenity, determining negligence, determining whether homicides claimed to be self defense are justifiable, and numerous other occasions where there simply is no objective standard you can point to.

Now if you ask whether or not it is reasonable to flee this country out of fear right now, I don't believe it is. Things here are simply not that bad. If you think they are, you are dreaming.

And 60% didn't. Democracy in action Mike. Fifty years ago, it probably would have been 90%. Maybe more. When things are getting better, you are going to have your work cut out for you convincing me that people need to get away.

Don't change the subject. You claimed that Alabama is not more racist than New York, based on a personal anecdote. I provided statistical evidence against your worthless assertion.

No, you provided evidence that the racism in Alabama was enshrined into law, that's it. That does not prove for a minute that racist attitudes amoing individuals are more prevalent. Strong evidence for it, certainly, but it's hardly conclusive proof.

The fact that maybe in another 50 years Alabama will progress as far as New York is irrelevant to the fact that it's a racist shithole now. If I were raising kids, it wouldn't do me any fucking good to say "well, it's really slowly moving in the right direction, so I guess I don't give a shit that my kids are being raised in a racist shithole right now". Who are you to say that people must be patient and wait another few fucking generations for the situation to improve?

Yes, and as we all know, the whole U.S.A. is just like Alabama. There's nowhere in this country you could go to escape this blight of intolerance.

I like how you point out the most backward, unenlightened part of the country, and then use that to justify fleeing the entire nation. No, that's not the least bit misleading.

The central point you are neatly dodging is that, as I said way back, people living their lives in this country, with few exceptions these days, are simply not subject to this kind of oppressive intolerance that makes it look reasonable to flee to another country because your candidate lost an election. You say that even in enlightened Canada you have experienced racial slurs and opposition to your mixed race marriage. Most people in most areas of this country who are minorities, or who are gays, or who are in mixed race relationships seem to have no more problems than you do. In the vast majority of cases, they live their lives and prosper according to their talents and their hard work. They don't appear to have it any worse than you do where you live. Based on the levels of intolerance you've exprienced, would you feel it necessary to run off to another country in order to avoid having your kids grow up in an unsafe environment?

[Stark]

OK, Kast, why do you have a problem with this? If a bunch of liberals/homosexuals/atheists move out of America, doesn't that make it a better place for you? Doesn't that proportionally increase the support for your preferred candidate? I don't see why this concerns you at all, rather I imagined you'd be saying things like 'yay!' and 'hooray'.

[Gandalf]

OK, Kast, why do you have a problem with this? If a bunch of liberals/homosexuals/atheists move out of America, doesn't that make it a better place for you? Doesn't that proportionally increase the support for your preferred candidate? I don't see why this concerns you at all, rather I imagined you'd be saying things like 'yay!' and 'hooray'.

Perhaps he sees America as the place everyone should want to live in?

[Nova Andromeda]

I'm sorry, but things are going to have to get a lot worse here before that looks to me like anything but an overreaction by people who got their baloon popped during the election. When I said as much in an earlier post, you immediately sneered at me and opined that maybe they didn't want their kids raised in an atmosphere of intolerance. As I said: what intolerance? What there is isn't even remotely as awful as you are making it out to be. The recent defense of marriage acts notwithstanding.

--You know what Perinquus you nothing more than a sour little crybaby who bitches and moans when people don't do what you want. Well guess what? Too fucking bad! This last election wasn't a one-time think. Not only did Bush win despite the horrors of the last years, but also the Republican Party made substantial gains across the board. Even now he is say how he plans to use the "political capital" he "earned" from the election and how he will reach out to those who "share his goals." Since you are probably too dumb to translate this let me: I won, I'm going to do whatever I want and fuck anyone who opposes me. Fortunately, the U.S. cannot survive his policies and remain as powerful as it is so like Britain before it, the U.S. will eventually fall from power (although probably much much faster). So while you stay here for whatever reason you have I'll take the first good opportunity to leave and laugh and all the shit the goes wrong for the U.S. because >50% of the electorate asked for it. We fought the good fight and got our asses handed to us (the paradigm is now screw a secular gov. that respects minority groups and make law according to majority rule), it is time for a strategic retreat. If by some miracle things turn out great then I'll come back and still laugh in your face.

[Nova Andromeda]

Why move to Canada? It's not like the United States has a monopoly on rednecks, fundamentalists, or others particularly hated by SD.net. Move to the "wrong" area in Canada, and you'll run into everything you did before. Hell, it may even be worse, since under a parliamentary system, smaller interest groups get more representation (just look at the BQ).

--Poor baby, if all your opponents were to leave who will you blame for everything that goes bad and who will you kick and piss on all the time? Bullies really do hate it when their intended victim manages to escape before they can inflict a proper beating (especially when said victim put of a good fight initially). I mean how are you suposed to gloat over a broken and demoralized opponent when they leave to fight another day?

[Perinquus]

I'm sorry, but things are going to have to get a lot worse here before that looks to me like anything but an overreaction by people who got their baloon popped during the election. When I said as much in an earlier post, you immediately sneered at me and opined that maybe they didn't want their kids raised in an atmosphere of intolerance. As I said: what intolerance? What there is isn't even remotely as awful as you are making it out to be. The recent defense of marriage acts notwithstanding.

--You know what Perinquus you nothing more than a sour little crybaby who bitches and moans when people don't do what you want.

Who says they're not doing what I want. I think these people are a bunch of spoiled crybabies themselves, so why should I be sorry to see them go? I still think they're idiots, but if they want to leave, I'll wave 'em off.

Well guess what? Too fucking bad! This last election wasn't a one-time think. Not only did Bush win despite the horrors of the last years, but also the Republican Party made substantial gains across the board. Even now he is say how he plans to use the "political capital" he "earned" from the election and how he will reach out to those who "share his goals." Since you are probably too dumb to translate this let me: I won, I'm going to do whatever I want and fuck anyone who opposes me.

Grow up you idiot. Not even the most sweeping mandates in U.S. history have amounted to that. As a matter of fact, the most sweeping mandate in U.S. history was Nixon's in 1972, and he tried to do something like that, and look where it got him. If Bush really goes too far, he'll be pulled up short just like Nixon was.

Fortunately, the U.S. cannot survive his policies and remain as powerful as it is so like Britain before it, the U.S. will eventually fall from power (although probably much much faster). So while you stay here for whatever reason you have I'll take the first good opportunity to leave and laugh and all the shit the goes wrong for the U.S.

So because your candidate lost, you will be pleased to see things go wrong for your country... And I'm the "sour little crybaby who bitches and moans when people don't do what he wants". Riiiiiiiggghhht...

because >50% of the electorate asked for it. We fought the good fight and got our asses handed to us (the paradigm is now screw a secular gov. that respects minority groups and make law according to majority rule), it is time for a strategic retreat. If by some miracle things turn out great then I'll come back and still laugh in your face.

Brilliant plan. I want things to change, so I will remove myself from play and leave the field to my opponents.

[Nova Andromeda]

I'm sorry, but things are going to have to get a lot worse here before that looks to me like anything but an overreaction by people who got their baloon popped during the election. When I said as much in an earlier post, you immediately sneered at me and opined that maybe they didn't want their kids raised in an atmosphere of intolerance. As I said: what intolerance? What there is isn't even remotely as awful as you are making it out to be. The recent defense of marriage acts notwithstanding.

--You know what Perinquus you nothing more than a sour little crybaby who bitches and moans when people don't do what you want.

... these people are a bunch of spoiled crybabies themselves, .... I still think they're idiots, ....

--Arguments for which you have no basis in fact.

Well guess what? Too fucking bad! This last election wasn't a one-time think. Not only did Bush win despite the horrors of the last years, but also the Republican Party made substantial gains across the board. Even now he is say how he plans to use the "political capital" he "earned" from the election and how he will reach out to those who "share his goals." Since you are probably too dumb to translate this let me: I won, I'm going to do whatever I want and fuck anyone who opposes me.

Grow up you idiot. Not even the most sweeping mandates in U.S. history have amounted to that. As a matter of fact, the most sweeping mandate in U.S. history was Nixon's in 1972, and he tried to do something like that, and look where it got him. If Bush really goes too far, he'll be pulled up short just like Nixon was.

-You truly are a galactic idiot! It is a matter of public record that Bush said he plans on using his "political capital" which can only mean he plans on pushing his agenda despite the opposition. You don't hear him talking about bringing the nation together except when he says things like he will "reach out the those who share [his] goals."

Fortunately, the U.S. cannot survive his policies and remain as powerful as it is so like Britain before it, the U.S. will eventually fall from power (although probably much much faster). So while you stay here for whatever reason you have I'll take the first good opportunity to leave and laugh and all the shit the goes wrong for the U.S.

So because your candidate lost, you will be pleased to see things go wrong for your country... And I'm the "sour little crybaby who bitches and moans when people don't do what he wants". Riiiiiiiggghhht...

-You just don't get it do you? The majority of the U.S. population has made a huge mistake in siding with the Republicans and their policies (or staying at home and not voting) despite severe and dire warning from people like me. Due to this I'm better off leaving this country. You're damn right I'm going to laugh at the idiots when they suffer the consquences of their actions. BTW, you do realize the damage is already done right? Things have already gone wrong. It is just a matter of watching events unfold now since we (the opposition) have no significant control or say in things anymore.

because >50% of the electorate asked for it. We fought the good fight and got our asses handed to us (the paradigm is now screw a secular gov. that respects minority groups and make law according to majority rule), it is time for a strategic retreat. If by some miracle things turn out great then I'll come back and still laugh in your face.

Brilliant plan. I want things to change, so I will remove myself from play and leave the field to my opponents.

-You might like to fight hopeless battles, but I don't. It is a waste of time, resources, and effert.

[Elfdart]

The difference this time, Perinquus is that in 1972, the Democrats held the House and Senate and were able to check him on a number of issues. Dubya has the House, Senate and courts on his side. He can do what he wants without any repercussions. For a good example of what the Bush regime has in store for us, remember that he openly defied the Non-Detention Act of 1971, by turning American citizens over to the military to be held without trial or due process. He did this while running for election, when presumably he was on his best behavior. Well, he was elected (First time for everything!) and has a free hand to order as many people "disappeared" as he wants. He and his supporters no longer have to feign shock at the anal rape of prisoners at Abu Ghraib -including women and boys.

So I find no fault whatsoever with someone who decides to get out of Dodge. Besides, aren't right-wingers the ones who always say "Oh yeah, if you don't like it, why don't you leave the country?" Someone finally takes up the offer and they still get pissed on. Conservatives sure are bitchy.

[Perinquus]

--You know what Perinquus you nothing more than a sour little crybaby who bitches and moans when people don't do what you want.

... these people are a bunch of spoiled crybabies themselves, .... I still think they're idiots, ....

--Arguments for which you have no basis in fact.

Well guess what? Too fucking bad! This last election wasn't a one-time think. Not only did Bush win despite the horrors of the last years, but also the Republican Party made substantial gains across the board. Even now he is say how he plans to use the "political capital" he "earned" from the election and how he will reach out to those who "share his goals." Since you are probably too dumb to translate this let me: I won, I'm going to do whatever I want and fuck anyone who opposes me.

Grow up you idiot. Not even the most sweeping mandates in U.S. history have amounted to that. As a matter of fact, the most sweeping mandate in U.S. history was Nixon's in 1972, and he tried to do something like that, and look where it got him. If Bush really goes too far, he'll be pulled up short just like Nixon was.

-You truly are a galactic idiot! It is a matter of public record that Bush said he plans on using his "political capital" which can only mean he plans on pushing his agenda despite the opposition. You don't hear him talking about bringing the nation together except when he says things like he will "reach out the those who share [his] goals."

Helloooooooo... McFly... EVERY PRESIDENT PLANS ON PUSHING HIS AGENDA DESPITE OPPOSITION! My God, you can say something as completely moronic as this, and call me the idiot? Do you have even the slightest concept of how adversarial politics in this country are, and have always been? Are you, perhaps, under some ridiculous misapprehension that partisan politics and mud-slinging campaigns are something new? Do you really imagine that other presidents, back to the beginning of the republic have ever had to do anything but push their agendas despite the opposition of the parties that were out of power?

Fortunately, the U.S. cannot survive his policies and remain as powerful as it is so like Britain before it, the U.S. will eventually fall from power (although probably much much faster). So while you stay here for whatever reason you have I'll take the first good opportunity to leave and laugh and all the shit the goes wrong for the U.S.

So because your candidate lost, you will be pleased to see things go wrong for your country... And I'm the "sour little crybaby who bitches and moans when people don't do what he wants". Riiiiiiiggghhht...

-You just don't get it do you? The majority of the U.S. population has made a huge mistake in siding with the Republicans and their policies

To quote you: "Arguments for which you have no basis in fact."

Basically, they didn't vote your way, so you want to see them punished. Excuse me, how old are you again?

(or staying at home and not voting) despite severe and dire warning from people like me.

The voter turnout was almost unprecedented moron.

Due to this I'm better off leaving this country.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on on the way out.

You're damn right I'm going to laugh at the idiots when they suffer the consquences of their actions.

Forgive me if I do not start quaking in my boots at your doomsaying.

BTW, you do realize the damage is already done right? Things have already gone wrong. It is just a matter of watching events unfold now since we (the opposition) have no significant control or say in things anymore.

You fucking idiot. The republicans only gained four seats in the senate. This gives them 55. You do realize that it takes 60 to override a democratic filibuster? The house has hardly been swept clean of democrats either. Opposition is not dead, nor, I suspect, does the rest of the democratic party share your political cowardice and doomsaying.

because >50% of the electorate asked for it. We fought the good fight and got our asses handed to us (the paradigm is now screw a secular gov. that respects minority groups and make law according to majority rule), it is time for a strategic retreat. If by some miracle things turn out great then I'll come back and still laugh in your face.

Brilliant plan. I want things to change, so I will remove myself from play and leave the field to my opponents.

-You might like to fight hopeless battles, but I don't. It is a waste of time, resources, and effert.

As I said...

[Perinquus]

The difference this time, Perinquus is that in 1972, the Democrats held the House and Senate and were able to check him on a number of issues. Dubya has the House, Senate and courts on his side. He can do what he wants without any repercussions.

He had the house and senate last term sharp stuff. I guess that's why he could do "what he wants without any repercussions", like effortlessly get his judicial nominees like Miguel Estrada confirmed. Oh... wait a minute...

You know, this is the most amazing criticism I think I ever see. The Republicans control both the executive and legislative branches. "Oh my God, the balance of power has fallen completely to one side. All is lost. Flee! Flee!" Nevermind that is countries with parliamentary systems, like Great Britain for example, the head of state's (prime minister's) party, and majority party have to be the same. And strangely enough, that doesn't automatically render the other side completely powerless.

For a good example of what the Bush regime has in store for us, remember that he openly defied the Non-Detention Act of 1971, by turning American citizens over to the military to be held without trial or due process. He did this while running for election, when presumably he was on his best behavior. Well, he was elected (First time for everything!) and has a free hand to order as many people "disappeared" as he wants.

Put your money where your mouth is you inflammatory little fuck. Tell me how many Americans have been "disappeared". How many. Tell me. I want a number. Give me a number. Name some names. This is inflammatory bullshit.

If you are referring to someone like Yasser Esam Hamdi, try again. You are talking about an "American" only in the most loosely interpreted sense possible. He may have been been born here, but he was born to foreign parents, and raised outside the country. He also happens to have been captured while bearing arms against his "mother country". And even in his case, his capture also happens to have led to a Supreme Court decision limiting the president's powers to indefinitely hold enemy combatants. And Hamdi wasn't "disappeared" either. He was returned safe and sound to Riyadh. So it sounds like you're talking a whole lot of shit, and you don't have a shred of evidence to back it up.

He and his supporters no longer have to feign shock at the anal rape of prisoners at Abu Ghraib -including women and boys.

And of course, you have proof that this was known all the way up to the commander in chief, I suppose.

I thought not.

So I find no fault whatsoever with someone who decides to get out of Dodge. Besides, aren't right-wingers the ones who always say "Oh yeah, if you don't like it, why don't you leave the country?"

Nice hasty generalization fallacy you've got there.

Someone finally takes up the offer and they still get pissed on. Conservatives sure are bitchy.

And liberals sure are stupid.

[Elfdart]

If you are referring to someone like Yasser Esam Hamdi, try again. You are talking about an "American" only in the most loosely interpreted sense possible. He may have been been born here, but he was born to foreign parents, and raised outside the country. He also happens to have been captured while bearing arms against his "mother country".

Oh bite my ass! Ever heard of the 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, Numbnuts? He was born here. He's a citizen and Congress outlawed holding ANY American citizen by the military or anyone else without being charged with a crime.

And even in his case, his capture also happens to have led to a Supreme Court decision limiting the president's powers to indefinitely hold enemy combatants.

Which Dubya and Reichsmarshall Ashcroft have flouted.

And Hamdi wasn't "disappeared" either. He was returned safe and sound to Riyadh. So it sounds like you're talking a whole lot of shit, and you don't have a shred of evidence to back it up.

First you say Hamdi deserves no protection under the law, that he is an enemy combatant. Well if he is, then handing him over to another party (Saudi Arabia) is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, since Saudi Arabia practices torture. So your argument comes down to "Bush isn't a menace to the rule of law, he's a war criminal!" Great. The only way your argument makes sense is if you get a cut of the money from the airline tickets to Canada that the exiles are buying. If so, my hat's off to ya. If not, you're a putz.

[Perinquus]

If you are referring to someone like Yasser Esam Hamdi, try again. You are talking about an "American" only in the most loosely interpreted sense possible. He may have been been born here, but he was born to foreign parents, and raised outside the country. He also happens to have been captured while bearing arms against his "mother country".

Oh bite my ass! Ever heard of the 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, Numbnuts? He was born here. He's a citizen and Congress outlawed holding ANY American citizen by the military or anyone else without being charged with a crime.

He ought to be glad he got the treatment he did. As and American citizen bearing arms against his country, he could have been charged with treason under Title 18 USC Sec. 2381 and executed.

And even in his case, his capture also happens to have led to a Supreme Court decision limiting the president's powers to indefinitely hold enemy combatants.

Which Dubya and Reichsmarshall Ashcroft have flouted.

As much as you would love to portray this as a clear and blatant violation of American law by the Bush administration, they are basing it on a 1950 supreme court ruling: Johnson v. Eisentrager in which the court denied Eisentrager and 20 other convicted German war criminals the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus. Constitutional protections do not extend to enemy aliens held on foreign soil, the court ruled.

And Hamdi wasn't "disappeared" either. He was returned safe and sound to Riyadh. So it sounds like you're talking a whole lot of shit, and you don't have a shred of evidence to back it up.

First you say Hamdi deserves no protection under the law, that he is an enemy combatant. Well if he is, then handing him over to another party (Saudi Arabia) is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, since Saudi Arabia practices torture. So your argument comes down to "Bush isn't a menace to the rule of law, he's a war criminal!" Great. The only way your argument makes sense is if you get a cut of the money from the airline tickets to Canada that the exiles are buying. If so, my hat's off to ya. If not, you're a putz.

You incredible, blithering idiot! Do you take stupid pills? Hamdi wasn't "handed over" to Saudi Arabia you unbelievable moron. He held dual citizenship, and he goddamn fucking wanted to go back there! It was his fucking country pinhead! Will you now consider it a violation of the Geneva Convention to return someone to his own goddamn country? The only penalty he got was to go back there and renounce his U.S. citizenship, and seeing as he did have U.S. citizenship, we would have been within our rights to fucking execute him! Consider what he could have got, and what he did get. He's captured bearing arms against the U.S., and in consequence of this, he's returned to his native country, where he holds citizenship, and where his loyalty lies. Oh yes, you're right. Poor man. What a terrible violation of his rights. How cruel. Bush is a monster.

[Elfdart]

If you are referring to someone like Yasser Esam Hamdi, try again. You are talking about an "American" only in the most loosely interpreted sense possible. He may have been been born here, but he was born to foreign parents, and raised outside the country. He also happens to have been captured while bearing arms against his "mother country".

Oh bite my ass! Ever heard of the 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, Numbnuts? He was born here. He's a citizen and Congress outlawed holding ANY American citizen by the military or anyone else without being charged with a crime.

He ought to be glad he got the treatment he did. As and American citizen bearing arms against his country, he could have been charged with treason under Title 18 USC Sec. 2381 and executed.

Only by one of Bush's illegal tribunals. The United States is not at war with Afghanistan, Iraq or anyone else and there's no evidence he tried to overthrow the government. So no treason.

And even in his case, his capture also happens to have led to a Supreme Court decision limiting the president's powers to indefinitely hold enemy combatants.

Which Dubya and Reichsmarshall Ashcroft have flouted.

As much as you would love to portray this as a clear and blatant violation of American law by the Bush administration, they are basing it on a 1950 supreme court ruling: Johnson v. Eisentrager in which the court denied Eisentrager and 20 other convicted German war criminals the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus. Constitutional protections do not extend to enemy aliens held on foreign soil, the court ruled.

You must have slept during civics class. The Congress passed a law, US Code 4001 which states: "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” There is no law authorizing the President, AG or anyone else to lock people up without due process. The act was specifically written to overturn several Supreme Court rulings and previous laws allowing people to be confined without being treated as prisoners of war or criminal defendants.

And Hamdi wasn't "disappeared" either. He was returned safe and sound to Riyadh. So it sounds like you're talking a whole lot of shit, and you don't have a shred of evidence to back it up.

First you say Hamdi deserves no protection under the law, that he is an enemy combatant. Well if he is, then handing him over to another party (Saudi Arabia) is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, since Saudi Arabia practices torture. So your argument comes down to "Bush isn't a menace to the rule of law, he's a war criminal!" Great. The only way your argument makes sense is if you get a cut of the money from the airline tickets to Canada that the exiles are buying. If so, my hat's off to ya. If not, you're a putz.

You incredible, blithering idiot! Do you take stupid pills? Hamdi wasn't "handed over" to Saudi Arabia you unbelievable moron. He held dual citizenship, and he goddamn fucking wanted to go back there! It was his fucking country pinhead! Will you now consider it a violation of the Geneva Convention to return someone to his own goddamn country?

If that country practices torture and there's a chance the person might get tortured, yes. More so, if he's simply agreeing to go back to Saudi Arabia to avoid being anally raped by Bush's men, or tried in front of one of his kangaroo courts at Camp X-ray and killed or locked up in a kennel, it's not even close to "voluntary", is it?

The only penalty he got was to go back there and renounce his U.S. citizenship, and seeing as he did have U.S. citizenship, we would have been within our rights to fucking execute him!

Bullshit refuted above.

Consider what he could have got, and what he did get. He's captured bearing arms against the U.S., and in consequence of this, he's returned to his native country, where he holds citizenship, and where his loyalty lies. Oh yes, you're right. Poor man. What a terrible violation of his rights. How cruel. Bush is a monster.

Bush's Justice Department argued that they had every right to abduct and imprison American citizens without charging them with a crime or treating them as POWs. They argued that Hamdi was so dangerous that any due process was a danger to the country. The courts didn't buy it and a writ of habeus corpus was issued. At which point, Hamdi was shipped to Saudi Arabia and let go. Sorry, they don't get any slack for being bungling fools as well as fascists.

Bush isn't running in 2008. The Congress is controlled by his party. The courts, too -and Bush plans to appoint all sorts of People Under The Stairs to the bench. As lawless as his regime has been so far, what do you think it's going to like for the next four years? If they decide to flout the law and lock up people without charging them, who the fuck do you think will stop them?

And you think people who decide it's not worth the risk and move to Canada are being crybabies?

[Uther]

I like how the United States is supposed to keep out of everyone's business, but oh God, the minute we elect a conservative Christian, you'll never hear the end of it from the Scandanavians and the Canadians.

Does anyone even care who the President of Sweden is? Does anyone even know? Do the Swedes?

[Rogue 9]

Does anyone even care who the President of Sweden is? Does anyone even know? Do the Swedes?

Actually, Sweden is a monarchy. I don't know if they have an office of President or not, but it's unlikely.

[Rogue 9]

Only by one of Bush's illegal tribunals. The United States is not at war with Afghanistan, Iraq or anyone else and there's no evidence he tried to overthrow the government. So no treason.

Are you fuggin' braindead? He held citizenship. He was shooting at U.S. troops. This fits any definition of treason that you will find, including the one in the Constitution of the United States.

[frigidmagi]

The United States is not at war with Afghanistan, Iraq or anyone else and there's no evidence he tried to overthrow the government. So no treason

Elfdart carrying arms against US military personnel is treason.

[Spyder]

I like how the United States is supposed to keep out of everyone's business, but oh God, the minute we elect a conservative Christian, you'll never hear the end of it from the Scandanavians and the Canadians.

Does anyone even care who the President of Sweden is? Does anyone even know? Do the Swedes?

They don't have one. They do however have a Prime Minister by the name of Göran Persson of their Social Democrat policy. He likes to promote responsible economic practices. Not a bad guy.

[Edi]

I like how the United States is supposed to keep out of everyone's business, but oh God, the minute we elect a conservative Christian, you'll never hear the end of it from the Scandanavians and the Canadians.

Does anyone even care who the President of Sweden is? Does anyone even know? Do the Swedes?

You might be funny if you weren't so fucking ignorant. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy and has no president. They have a royal family where the crown is passed onb to the oldest child, and the prime minister and the government take care of running the country. Much like the UK. Finland, on the other hand, is a republic with a president.

Never mind that US policies tend to affect the entire world by virtue of its size and economic clout, so the rest of the world has a big stake on who gets elected POTUS. Sweden and Finland have no comparable impact at all on the world stage.

Edi

[His Divine Shadow]

They don't have one. They do however have a Prime Minister by the name of Göran Persson of their Social Democrat policy. He likes to promote responsible economic practices. Not a bad guy.

Actually no he's a social democrat and likes to not promote good economic practices, his party is responsible for sweden being such a socalist clusterfuck of a country with one of the highest tax rates in the world and also the disassembly of nuclear power, I would know I live next door, not that my country isn't a bit fucked up itself.

I'm just hoping the right parties win the next election there, which might be likely given how fed up people seem to be.

[Spyder]

They don't have one. They do however have a Prime Minister by the name of Göran Persson of their Social Democrat policy. He likes to promote responsible economic practices. Not a bad guy.

Actually no he's a social democrat and likes to not promote good economic practices, his party is responsible for sweden being such a socalist clusterfuck of a country with one of the highest tax rates in the world and also the disassembly of nuclear power, I would know I live next door, not that my country isn't a bit fucked up itself.

Meh, close enough.

[Elfdart]

Only by one of Bush's illegal tribunals. The United States is not at war with Afghanistan, Iraq or anyone else and there's no evidence he tried to overthrow the government. So no treason.

Are you fuggin' braindead? He held citizenship. He was shooting at U.S. troops. This fits any definition of treason that you will find, including the one in the Constitution of the United States.

Perinquus was arguing that Hamdi had no rights under US law because he's only a citizen by accident. Now he's saying Hamdi could be executed for treason because he's a citizen by birth. Well, which is it?

If Hamdi is an American citizen, he can only be detained by the armed forces long enough to hand him over to the regular justice system under the Non-Detention Act of 1971. If Hamdi was not a citizen, but just some guy caught on the battlefield, he is subject to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the very things the Bush junta have done to him.

During WW2, a number of German, Italian, and other Axis POWs were technically American citizens because they were born here. But they didn't try to pass themselves off as Americans, didn't travel under US passports or in any way betray the US. They were not even charged with treason for reasons anyone whose IQ number is greater than their shoe size can notice.

Either way, the Bush regime violated the rights of a prisoner and have flouted the law and due process. They claim the right to do so to anyone they want to. And yet people who flee to Canada or other countries are derided as "crybabies" and such.

[Uther]

I like how the United States is supposed to keep out of everyone's business, but oh God, the minute we elect a conservative Christian, you'll never hear the end of it from the Scandanavians and the Canadians.

Does anyone even care who the President of Sweden is? Does anyone even know? Do the Swedes?

You might be funny if you weren't so fucking ignorant. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy and has no president. They have a royal family where the crown is passed onb to the oldest child, and the prime minister and the government take care of running the country. Much like the UK. Finland, on the other hand, is a republic with a president.

Never mind that US policies tend to affect the entire world by virtue of its size and economic clout, so the rest of the world has a big stake on who gets elected POTUS. Sweden and Finland have no comparable impact at all on the world stage.

Edi

Yeah, I was going to ask if they even have a prez, but I figured I was already way overboard on the rhetoric. I mostly see bitching about "teh gay marriage!!1" and "teh Christians rule now!" Um, ok. How exactly does Ohio striking down gay marriage affect you crazy canucks? I mean Fins?

[Darth Wong]

I like how the United States is supposed to keep out of everyone's business, but oh God, the minute we elect a conservative Christian, you'll never hear the end of it from the Scandanavians and the Canadians.

Obviously, you do not understand that "interfere with" and "comment on" are two different things. Perhaps you would understand the distinction if you were presented with a choice between being beaten with a baseball bat and being really strongly criticized.