Americans seeking immigration data jam Canadian website

[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.

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.

Oh pish posh. I don't think GWB is going to run into Canada and outlaw gay marriage any time soon. So what's the big deal? Even the one aspect of American politics that is likely to have any effect on other nations, our foreign policy, is motivated more by a dumb ass Wilsonian spread the democratic peace than this red herring notion of "Bush is on a Crusade again!" Everyone settle down and put your pants back on. We weren't even talking about gay marriage/civil unions two years ago, and now all of a sudden it's a vital civil right. Hello, of course it went down. I'm suprised they even got 25% of the vote in some states.

[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.

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.

Oh pish posh. I don't think GWB is going to run into Canada and outlaw gay marriage any time soon. So what's the big deal? Even the one aspect of American politics that is likely to have any effect on other nations, our foreign policy, is motivated more by a dumb ass Wilsonian spread the democratic peace than this red herring notion of "Bush is on a Crusade again!" Everyone settle down and put your pants back on. We weren't even talking about gay marriage/civil unions two years ago, and now all of a sudden it's a vital civil right. Hello, of course it went down. I'm suprised they even got 25% of the vote in some states.

What the fuck are you smoking? Your foreign policy might be guided by Bush's delusions about spreading democracy, but hes going about it precisely in the crusade manner, and it's not working.

As for why prohibition of gay marriage is a violation of civil rights, see the following:

• 9th amendment, US constitution
• 14th amendment, US constitution
• freedom of association
• principle of equality before law
• some basic legal theory about contracts (in conjunction with freedom of association)
• the legal definition of marriage
• separation of church and state

That just for starters, and when you have understood the implications of all these taken together, then come back and tell me again the issue is not important.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren't going to bother connecting the dots, so I'll do it for you:

• 9th amendment, USC, says that even though not every conceivable right is enumerated in the USC, it does NOT mean that those right don't exist
• 14th amendment, USC, says that states may not make an end run around the federal USC by state level legislation (including state constitutions) in order to infringe on civil rights
• Freedom of association means that people are supposed to be free to associate with whoever they please without interference from the government (as long as they are not engaged in criminal activity, that is)
• The principle of equality before the law means that discrimination based on race, sex, political views and other such factors (one of which is sexual orientation) is strictly forbidden. There are numerous amendments in the USC which directly apply this principle and support this argument.
• Just about the most basic fact and principle about conract law is that adults are free to make contracts with whoever they please (as long as the contract does not involve criminal activity, e.g. contracting a hit on someone)
• The legal definition of marriage is that it is a civil contract between two adults that confers certain benefits upon them because the state finds this desirable. The contract is also exclusive, and the parties may not make another contract of this type until the first is nullified (divorce or death of one party).
• The separation of church and state means that the state cannot favor any religion, hence it is forbidden to legislate religious morality into law unless there is also a secular reason to do so.

When you apply all of this together, it is blatantly obvious that the prohibition against homosexuals marriages is nothing but discrimination on the basis of the gender of one party in a contract.

Do you have anything else to add? I'm getting fucking sick and tired of having to explain this issue to supposedly intelligent people.

Edi

[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.

Oh pish posh. I don't think GWB is going to run into Canada and outlaw gay marriage any time soon. So what's the big deal?

OK, let me explain this for you again, slowly: you complain that "the United States is supposed to keep out of everyone's business", by which you refer to people telling Americans to stop directly interfering with other countries' internal affairs, via such methods as bombings, invasions, funding and military support to insurgents or governments, etc. Then you compare this to people criticizing the US, in which people from other countries say bad things about American internal affairs. If you honestly cannot understand how the two are not equivalent, I can't help you.

[Uther]

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.

Oh pish posh. I don't think GWB is going to run into Canada and outlaw gay marriage any time soon. So what's the big deal? Even the one aspect of American politics that is likely to have any effect on other nations, our foreign policy, is motivated more by a dumb ass Wilsonian spread the democratic peace than this red herring notion of "Bush is on a Crusade again!" Everyone settle down and put your pants back on. We weren't even talking about gay marriage/civil unions two years ago, and now all of a sudden it's a vital civil right. Hello, of course it went down. I'm suprised they even got 25% of the vote in some states.

What the fuck are you smoking? Your foreign policy might be guided by Bush's delusions about spreading democracy, but hes going about it precisely in the crusade manner, and it's not working.

As for why prohibition of gay marriage is a violation of civil rights, see the following:

• 9th amendment, US constitution
• 14th amendment, US constitution
• freedom of association
• principle of equality before law
• some basic legal theory about contracts (in conjunction with freedom of association)
• the legal definition of marriage
• separation of church and state

That just for starters, and when you have understood the implications of all these taken together, then come back and tell me again the issue is not important.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren't going to bother connecting the dots, so I'll do it for you:

• 9th amendment, USC, says that even though not every conceivable right is enumerated in the USC, it does NOT mean that those right don't exist
• 14th amendment, USC, says that states may not make an end run around the federal USC by state level legislation (including state constitutions) in order to infringe on civil rights
• Freedom of association means that people are supposed to be free to associate with whoever they please without interference from the government (as long as they are not engaged in criminal activity, that is)
• The principle of equality before the law means that discrimination based on race, sex, political views and other such factors (one of which is sexual orientation) is strictly forbidden. There are numerous amendments in the USC which directly apply this principle and support this argument.
• Just about the most basic fact and principle about conract law is that adults are free to make contracts with whoever they please (as long as the contract does not involve criminal activity, e.g. contracting a hit on someone)
• The legal definition of marriage is that it is a civil contract between two adults that confers certain benefits upon them because the state finds this desirable. The contract is also exclusive, and the parties may not make another contract of this type until the first is nullified (divorce or death of one party).
• The separation of church and state means that the state cannot favor any religion, hence it is forbidden to legislate religious morality into law unless there is also a secular reason to do so.

When you apply all of this together, it is blatantly obvious that the prohibition against homosexuals marriages is nothing but discrimination on the basis of the gender of one party in a contract.

Do you have anything else to add? I'm getting fucking sick and tired of having to explain this issue to supposedly intelligent people.

Edi

Who said I was intelligent?! The fact that you're at least passingly familiar with US federal law, as demonstrated above, shows that people spend WAY too much time meditating about what Americans are doing, and not enough dealing with their own problems. I mean, dollars to donuts Finland is as screwed up in all sorts of weird ways as we are, but you never hear about it because the USA is like the Tom Cruise of nations. We get a divorce, boom, it's all over the place. Ok well actually we're more like the Bruce Willis but that's neither here nor there.

No wait, actually Bruce hasn't made a good movie in a while. Uh, The Rock? Hulk Hogan? I sort of like Suburban Commando.

OK, let me explain this for you again, slowly: you complain that "the United States is supposed to keep out of everyone's business", by which you refer to people telling Americans to stop directly interfering with other countries' internal affairs, via such methods as bombings, invasions, funding and military support to insurgents or governments, etc. Then you compare this to people criticizing the US, in which people from other countries say bad things about American internal affairs. If you honestly cannot understand how the two are not equivalent, I can't help you.

I'm not defending the merits if US foreign policy, although quite frankly we're the only ways even capable of projecting power in any meaningful sense anymore. Canada and the EU want to bitch about the way the USA is reshaping the world? Fine, but that's all you're going to be able to do until you're ready to sink your budgets into massive military build up. Until then, international military affairs is a purely American game. And you'll be grateful too when Iran decides to take over the world.

Sure, sure. I see bitching about Iraq and the "war on terror." But I see a lot more bitching about the evil fundies here to conquer America and crazy old GWB and his gay hating cadre of evil robots from beyond the moon. There's a difference between a foreigner telling me how to conduct international affairs and how I should conduct domestic ones.

[Imperial Overlord]

People are spending way too much time worrying about what the US is doing? It does happen to beTHE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY ON THE FUCKING PLANET AND THE SUPPOSSED LEADER OF THE FREE FUCKING WORLD. Its actions affect the rest of the planet. If you are Canadian it also happens to be your next door neighbor and your larget trading partner. Are you advocating complete ignorance about international affairs in this day and age?

[Perinquus]

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.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. By any court or tribunal that finds him guilty, and choses to invoke the full penalty under Title 18 USC Sec. 2381, which states:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States...

(Uh, that would be citizens Elftard.)

levies war against them or adheres to their enemies,

(I do believe bearing arms against the military forces of the Unites States qualifies here.)

giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere ,is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

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.

Bullshit again. You will note, that nowhere in the above definition is it stipulated that we must be in a declared state of war, or that he must be trying to overthrow the government. All that is required to meet the stipulations of this code for treason against the United States is that he "levies war against them or adheres to their enemies", which he did.

You say that you are arguing about my stance concerning Hamdi because he is a citizen. Well, so he is, albeit only technically. Still, since you want to be technical about it, fine. As a citizen, he could have stood to face far worse penalties, because he was guilty of treason, which his fellow prisoners weren't. He could have been executed, and had we chosen to condemn him to death, it would have been completely, 100% legal. Citizenship carries the full protection of U.S. law, but it also carries responsibilities and obligations, and it also means being subject to full penalties of U.S. law when you break it.

Hamdi got off easy. And he ought to thank Allah that we did not choose to take as much official notice of his status as a U.S. citizen as we could have.

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.

Fine. You know what? I will agree in principle. Hamdi should never have been imprisoned without being charged. He should have been charged at once (of treason, being as he was an American citizen), then tried, found guilty (both fair and inevitable given the evidence), stood up against a wall, and shot. That would have been entirely legal, and in no sense a violation of his civil liberties, as he was clearly guilty of treason under Title 18 USC sec. 2381. Of course, he'd also be far worse off than he really is now, but hey... there'd be nothing remotely illegal about it.

But you know, I more than suspect that if they had done exactly as I described, you would be arguing the other side of the coin, saying that although he is technically a citizen, he's only one because his non-citizen parents happened to be physically in the U.S. at the time of his birth, and he did not remain here to grow up as an American, and therefore, he should not be treated as harshly as any other American citizen would be. Well, if he gets all the protection of American citizenship, he must also bear all the responsibilities of U.S. citizenship.

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.

I see. So even if 1. the person lives there, and is a citizen of that country, and 2. is not claiming asylum, and actually wants to go back to that country, it is a violation of the Geneva convention to send him there?

My god. You really do take stupid pills. I don't believe I've ever seen you make a more asinine argument, and that's saying something. Do you even comprehend that in your reflexive, unthinking impulse to take the exact opposite of whatever position I advocate, you have argued yourself into saying we should effectively hold him in exile from his native country? Please tell me, genius, where we get the authority to do such a thing. I am dying to hear this.

More so, if he's simply agreeing to go back to Saudi Arabia to avoid being anally raped by Bush's men,

Hamdi was not at, nor was he ever about to be sent to Abu Graib. This is the only place where such offenses have been alleged to take place. Kind of curious that, if this sort of thing is supposed to have broad approval from the Bush administration.

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?

It wouldn't have taken a "kangaroo court". A perfectly legitimate tribunal could have found him guilty of treason based entirely on the bare, unexaggerrated facts, he could have been subsequently executed. And it would have been absolutely legal.

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.

No, reality. What is bullshit is that you imagine you have refuted it. Bottom line: he was an American citizen caught in blatant violation of Title 18 USC Sec. 2381, governing treason, and as such is liable to the penalites listed under that code for that offense, and that includes death. It's all there, in black and white.

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.

You know, if Bush were really the Hitlerian figure you like to imagine, and if his administration really were the fascists you seem to think, Hamdi would be dead now, as they had every right under the law to deprive him of his life. Real Nazis killed with far less justification. But then you are far too blinded by your ideology to appreciate little distinctions of fact such as that.

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?

Look out. Here's that slippery slope again.

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

Uh, yeah, because I don't believe your predictions of doom and gloom. And I don't believe we have the police state you seem to expect lurking just around the corner.

[Uther]

People are spending way too much time worrying about what the US is doing? It does happen to beTHE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY ON THE FUCKING PLANET AND THE SUPPOSSED LEADER OF THE FREE FUCKING WORLD. Its actions affect the rest of the planet. If you are Canadian it also happens to be your next door neighbor and your larget trading partner. Are you advocating complete ignorance about international affairs in this day and age?

No, I'm advocating why the hell do you care about gay marriage in the USA? How many countries in the world allow gay marriage? Like 4? 10? I bet China and India don't, and they're sure as hell preventing a lot more gays from expressing their true love than we are. Where's the outrage people? We INVENTED Will and Grace AND Queer Eye for the Straight Guy! Ok, now I'm thinking we may have stolen that last one. But Will and Grace! INVENTED!

[Imperial Overlord]

China is an outrage, but it isn't the leader of the free world. We expect the US to behave better than China, just like we expect Canada and Sweden to behave better than China.

[Gustav32Vasa]

More so, if he's simply agreeing to go back to Saudi Arabia to avoid being anally raped by Bush's men,

Hamdi was not at, nor was he ever about to be sent to Abu Graib. This is the only place where such offenses have been alleged to take place. Kind of curious that, if this sort of thing is supposed to have broad approval from the Bush administration.

Nitpick. But I've heard it also happend/still happens at Guatama(sp?).

[Uther]

China is an outrage, but it isn't the leader of the free world. We expect the US to behave better than China, just like we expect Canada and Sweden to behave better than China.

We're only the leader of the free world because of sheer luck, circumstance, a superb industrial base, and a pretty damn good form of government. Criticize our foreign policy as you will, but I don't see how being able to kick most of the rest of the world around somehow endows us with a moral obligation to "behave better" than everyone else. Quite frankly, I, and a lot of other Americans, would be perfectly happy if someone else were the military/economic kings of the world, and thus the target of unending criticisms and diatribes. EU, I'm looking in your direction.

[Imperial Overlord]

Did you just say the US doesn't want to be the most powerful nation on the planet?

[Uther]

Did you just say the US doesn't want to be the most powerful nation on the planet?

I can't really speak for the US as a whole, but no, I don't give two poops. I'd be much happier if someone else got to devote like 25% of their national budget to defense. As long as we get a high standard of living, I don't care about being the most powerful. That's for 15 year old boys with phallic issues.

[Elfdart]

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.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. By any court or tribunal that finds him guilty, and choses to invoke the full penalty under Title 18 USC Sec. 2381, which states:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States...

(Uh, that would be citizens Elftard.)

levies war against them or adheres to their enemies,

(I do believe bearing arms against the military forces of the Unites States qualifies here.)

giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere ,is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

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.

Bullshit again. You will note, that nowhere in the above definition is it stipulated that we must be in a declared state of war, or that he must be trying to overthrow the government. All that is required to meet the stipulations of this code for treason against the United States is that he "levies war against them or adheres to their enemies", which he did.

Levies WAR, numbnuts. Adheres to enemies. An enemy is someone you're at war with.

You say that you are arguing about my stance concerning Hamdi because he is a citizen. Well, so he is, albeit only technically. Still, since you want to be technical about it, fine. As a citizen, he could have stood to face far worse penalties, because he was guilty of treason, which his fellow prisoners weren't. He could have been executed, and had we chosen to condemn him to death, it would have been completely, 100% legal. Citizenship carries the full protection of U.S. law, but it also carries responsibilities and obligations, and it also means being subject to full penalties of U.S. law when you break it.

Hamdi got off easy. And he ought to thank Allah that we did not choose to take as much official notice of his status as a U.S. citizen as we could have.

You forgot that little thing called due process. You know, trials and such, where the case would have to be proven? By the way, would you like to offer any proof Hamdi actually took up arms against the United States? Ashcroft's Justice Department was told it couldn't hold Hamdi without trial. If there was any kind of evidence, I would think Crisco Head would have at least put as much effort into prosecuting Hamdi as say, Tommy Chong. But when told to put up or shut up, Ashcroft signed a deal with Hamdi in which Hamdi gave up his citizenship [unbelievable bullshit!] and his right to sue Asshat and was deported to Saudi Arabia.

I suspect that the reason Hamdi and Lindh got off relatively easy is that torture was already being used by the government and any legitimate trial would have made it public more than a year before Seymour Hersh did.

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.

Fine. You know what? I will agree in principle. Hamdi should never have been imprisoned without being charged. He should have been charged at once (of treason, being as he was an American citizen), then tried, found guilty (both fair and inevitable given the evidence), stood up against a wall, and shot. That would have been entirely legal, and in no sense a violation of his civil liberties, as he was clearly guilty of treason under Title 18 USC sec. 2381. Of course, he'd also be far worse off than he really is now, but hey... there'd be nothing remotely illegal about it.

But you know, I more than suspect that if they had done exactly as I described, you would be arguing the other side of the coin, saying that although he is technically a citizen, he's only one because his non-citizen parents happened to be physically in the U.S. at the time of his birth, and he did not remain here to grow up as an American, and therefore, he should not be treated as harshly as any other American citizen would be. Well, if he gets all the protection of American citizenship, he must also bear all the responsibilities of U.S. citizenship.

See above.

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.

I see. So even if 1. the person lives there, and is a citizen of that country, and 2. is not claiming asylum, and actually wants to go back to that country, it is a violation of the Geneva convention to send him there?

If the government is arguing that Hamdi is a POW and not subject to due process in criminal courts, yes. If Hamdi's a citizen and there's proof he fought against this country, try him and give him the needle or whatever else is in store for him. If he's a POW, partisan, enemy spy caught in the war zone or saboteur, the Geneva Conventions demand that his status as a combatant be determined by a "competent tribunal" according to the same rules (in this case) an American soldier would face in American custody. If a regular court martial finds him to be a spy or saboteur, ready, aim, fire! But you'll notice that the Bush junta realizes that those slated for swine justice might actually get justice in REAL courts or courts-martial. That's why they pulled the special tribunals out of their asses. These kangaroo courts don't even have the white hoods, ropes and quaint rustic charm of honest lynchings.

My god. You really do take stupid pills. I don't believe I've ever seen you make a more asinine argument, and that's saying something. Do you even comprehend that in your reflexive, unthinking impulse to take the exact opposite of whatever position I advocate, you have argued yourself into saying we should effectively hold him in exile from his native country? Please tell me, genius, where we get the authority to do such a thing. I am dying to hear this.

If he agreed to it, fine. Clearly he's not a POW, so sending him away isn't illegal. It is customary, however, to not send foreign nationals back to their home countries if they might be tortured. But again, if he asked for it, fine.

More so, if he's simply agreeing to go back to Saudi Arabia to avoid being anally raped by Bush's men,

Hamdi was not at, nor was he ever about to be sent to Abu Graib. This is the only place where such offenses have been alleged to take place. Kind of curious that, if this sort of thing is supposed to have broad approval from the Bush administration.

White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez wrote that the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply to those caught by American troops. This was what he was stupid enough to put in writing. Has the administration disowned it? Torturing prisoners has gone on at Camp X-ray, Bagram in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib. In fact, a number of the people implicated in the cornholings at Abu Ghraib worked the other two hellholes as well.

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?

It wouldn't have taken a "kangaroo court". A perfectly legitimate tribunal could have found him guilty of treason based entirely on the bare, unexaggerrated facts, he could have been subsequently executed. And it would have been absolutely legal.

When given the chance to put up or shut up, the "terrorist" was shipped out of the country with a fishy agreement to cover Ashcroft's ass. It's open and shut, according to you, but the Bush junta let him go. What were they afraid of?

No, reality. What is bullshit is that you imagine you have refuted it. Bottom line: he was an American citizen caught in blatant violation of Title 18 USC Sec. 2381, governing treason, and as such is liable to the penalites listed under that code for that offense, and that includes death. It's all there, in black and white.

And yet they didn't charge him with so much as a parking ticket.

You know, if Bush were really the Hitlerian figure you like to imagine, and if his administration really were the fascists you seem to think, Hamdi would be dead now, as they had every right under the law to deprive him of his life. Real Nazis killed with far less justification. But then you are far too blinded by your ideology to appreciate little distinctions of fact such as that.

Hitlerian? Hitler wasn't a deserter from the National Guard.

Anyway, a number of prisoners have been tortured and murdered. The men who did it were only prosecuted when a disgruntled soldier at Abu Ghraib complained about it and the story went public. Were it not for that, Lyndie England might still by shoving glowsticks up people's asses.

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?

Look out. Here's that slippery slope again.

Projecting future behavior by observing past behavior isn't any kind of slippery slope. By your il-logic, if you notice a weasel has killed a number of your chickens and got away with it, it's a slippery slope to think the weasel will come back for more.

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

Uh, yeah, because I don't believe your predictions of doom and gloom. And I don't believe we have the police state you seem to expect lurking just around the corner.

I'm not running to Canada, but I can't find fault with those who do. If they don't want their freedoms adjudicated by courts appointed by the douchebag who brought us The Count Of Monte Crisco, who can blame them? I'm sure they have other reasons for leaving as well.

[Edi]

Who said I was intelligent?!

Indeed, my mistake in assuming such. Rest assured I'll not repeat that particular error.

The fact that you're at least passingly familiar with US federal law,

Not really, just familiar with some basic concepts of legal theory, as well as having had to deal with arguments relying on the USC, so I've read that document. The thing just happens to be that those basic concepts happen to be the very underpinnings and foundational principles of your country, and of practicaly every democracy in the West.

as demonstrated above, shows that people spend WAY too much time meditating about what Americans are doing, and not enough dealing with their own problems. I mean, dollars to donuts Finland is as screwed up in all sorts of weird ways as we are, but you never hear about it because the USA is like the Tom Cruise of nations. We get a divorce, boom, it's all over the place. Ok well actually we're more like the Bruce Willis but that's neither here nor there.

Actually, this country isn't that screwed up, even though it does have its own set of problems. Some of those would be unemployment, punishment for certain crimes being far too lenient compared to some others, and having to deal with certain types of shit from the EU. But we do not have nearly the magnitude of social problems the US has (e.g. religion trying to force itself into the government, something I would know because my father has been doing church related law issues for over 20 years on account of his job).

Sure, sure. I see bitching about Iraq and the "war on terror." But I see a lot more bitching about the evil fundies here to conquer America and crazy old GWB and his gay hating cadre of evil robots from beyond the moon. There's a difference between a foreigner telling me how to conduct international affairs and how I should conduct domestic ones.

As long as the US is going to proudly point to itself as the land of the free and hold itself as the paragon example of democracy and freedom and equality, you bet your arse it's going to get bodyslammed and curbstomped as a nation on account of its attempts to deny equality to its citizens and discriminate against certain minorities. It might be news to you, but if a person or a nation is a hypocrite about something, it has no credibility whatsoever on the issue when dealing with those who are not.

Edi

[Uther]

Not really, just familiar with some basic concepts of legal theory, as well as having had to deal with arguments relying on the USC, so I've read that document. The thing just happens to be that those basic concepts happen to be the very underpinnings and foundational principles of your country, and of practicaly every democracy in the West.

Ok, fair enough, some of your points were based on more general notions of jurisprudence, but come on, you cited specific amendments. I'm not saying that's weird or anything...but...
Ok it's a little weird. I mean, it's enlightened and worldly. But the point is people are obsessed with America because we're super studs.

Actually, this country isn't that screwed up, even though it does have its own set of problems. Some of those would be unemployment, punishment for certain crimes being far too lenient compared to some others, and having to deal with certain types of shit from the EU. But we do not have nearly the magnitude of social problems the US has (e.g. religion trying to force itself into the government, something I would know because my father has been doing church related law issues for over 20 years on account of his job).

Haha. Oh noes, Bush is trying to ban the gay marriage! Hey guess what? Europe's favorite pal Bill Clinton tried to do the same thing, but he was a adulterer, so it's cool. You do realize there's a huge difference between a politician with great personal faith and an intertwining of church and state, right? The definition of "separation of church and state" isn't a monolithic one. It's frankly whatever the hell you want it to mean. Oh, expect the the state can't make laws respecting the establishment of religion or something. But who knows what that means.

As long as the US is going to proudly point to itself as the land of the free and hold itself as the paragon example of democracy and freedom and equality, you bet your arse it's going to get bodyslammed and curbstomped as a nation on account of its attempts to deny equality to its citizens and discriminate against certain minorities. It might be news to you, but if a person or a nation is a hypocrite about something, it has no credibility whatsoever on the issue when dealing with those who are not.

Yeah, well, at least we occasionally do get off our butts and beat the crap out of dictators. Oh, and who pretty much preserved democracy in Western Europe for 50 years? I'll give you a hint- it was the USA.

[Imperial Overlord]

We aren't saying the US is evil. As imperialistic powers go, it is pretty damn good. That doesn't mean it is above criticism. Being as powerful as it is, it is much more important that it is subject to criticism. It can do a lot of good and a lot of harm. When it starts veering in the wrong direction then that should corrected.

And what is the wrong direction? That's why we have informed discussions.

[Superman]

Perinquus, for someone who doesn't care, you should complain about people moving there. You call them "spoiled;" are you jealous or something?

[Edi]

Not really, just familiar with some basic concepts of legal theory, as well as having had to deal with arguments relying on the USC, so I've read that document. The thing just happens to be that those basic concepts happen to be the very underpinnings and foundational principles of your country, and of practicaly every democracy in the West.

Ok, fair enough, some of your points were based on more general notions of jurisprudence, but come on, you cited specific amendments. I'm not saying that's weird or anything...but...
Ok it's a little weird. I mean, it's enlightened and worldly. But the point is people are obsessed with America because we're super studs.

Hardly weird. In any argument about social issues where Americans take part, they invariably bring up the constitution in defense of whatever point, or to try and disprove somebody else's point. I've been in my fair share and then some of these debates, and it's not fun getting ambushed by an unexpected thing one didn't know about. I've read the USC in order to prevent that from happening. The 14th amendment comes up fairly often, so it's easy to remember, and Pablo Sanchez reminded me the other day which number went with the expanded rights one (9th).

Haha. Oh noes, Bush is trying to ban the gay marriage! Hey guess what? Europe's favorite pal Bill Clinton tried to do the same thing, but he was a adulterer, so it's cool.

Bzzztttt! Wrong! Clinton did not bring the DoMA legislation to the House or the Senate, the Republicans did in order to cast Clinton in a bad light in the eyes of liberals, but instead of vetoing it and giving the GOP more ammunition against him, he signed it. Showed great political acumen, and his charisma allowed him to get away with it with his liberal supporters. Politically it was a good move, even if it was not really principled and ethical. Shrub, on the other hand, is actively trying to push the ban through, on his own initiative. Try again.

You do realize there's a huge difference between a politician with great personal faith and an intertwining of church and state, right?

Yes, I do, but in the case of the Bush administration and Bush personally, they have tried to legislate that personal faith into law.

The definition of "separation of church and state" isn't a monolithic one. It's frankly whatever the hell you want it to mean. Oh, expect the the state can't make laws respecting the establishment of religion or something. But who knows what that means.

You certainly don't seem to know, but then again, you're pig-ignorant and also apparently stupid as fuck. I'll spell it out for you.

The 1st amendment to the USC means that the state may not pass laws that put any religion in a better position relative to its competitors because of the law. Violations of this by the current administration include giving government money to religious charities (in whose agenda spreading the religion is as important, if not more so, than helping the needy) and the school vouchers which allow government money to be used to further religious indoctrination (by using the voucher to pay for religious education).

The separation of church and state is a very clear concept, and it means that rules with only a religious basis have no place in secular law, and that the church should stay the fuck out of government, and the government shouldn't interfere with the church unless it is to prevent illegal action by the church.

Yeah, well, at least we occasionally do get off our butts and beat the crap out of dictators.

Are you familiar with the foundation principle of international law, one called sovereignty? According to that, you aren't allowed to willy nilly invade wherever you please just because the place is led by a bad man. The rulership of a nation is an internal affair of the nation in question, and as long as any troubles resulting from disputes over it or other actions stay inside the borders of that nation, then it's nobody else's business. There are ways for other countries to affect situations like that without the problems inherent in invading, and the international community has rules where the sovereignty of a nation can be overridden if enough countries agree to it.

Yes, he US invaded Iraq, and if you think that was an action the political leadership should be praised for elsewhere in the world, you have another think coming.

Oh, and who pretty much preserved democracy in Western Europe for 50 years? I'll give you a hint- it was the USA.

This line might work with somebody else, but it does not work on me. You see, the nation that preserved democracy here was none other than Germany, Hitler's Germany to be more precise. Without their support, Finland would have been overrun by your ally, the Soviet Union, and you'd have stood by and let it happen. You get credit for keeping the Soviets out from Western Europe after the defeat of Hitler, but you sure as fuck don't get credit for ensuring my country's freedom. That credit belongs to the Finns who fought a hard and brutal war, and the German soldiers who helped them keep the Soviets out. Germany's other actions during WW2 are a different matter, but their help to us is a bright spot on an otherwise horrendous record.

Edi

[Thinkmarble]

Yeah, well, at least we occasionally do get off our butts and beat the crap out of dictators. Oh, and who pretty much preserved democracy in Western Europe for 50 years? I'll give you a hint- it was the USA.

It was not the USA alone. The FRG had still conscription service at a time the USA went all volunteer.
The correct statment ist: The NATO has preserved democracy in Western Europe for 50 years.
And about defending democracy, you may want to talk to a greek. Ask him about the Junta and their support by the USA.

[Ma Deuce]

It was not the USA alone. The FRG had still conscription service at a time the USA went all volunteer.
The correct statment ist: The NATO has preserved democracy in Western Europe for 50 years.

The only part of NATO's defence in Europe that really mattered was it's nukes, almost all of which belonged to America (especially the tactical nukes and TBMs the Americans deployed in Germany), because frankly the Soviet Union had an obscene advantage over NATO in terms of conventional land forces (especially during the '70s and '80s), and without the nuclear factor to deter them, they could have steamrollered their way all the way to Spain in weeks...

[Uther]

Hardly weird. In any argument about social issues where Americans take part, they invariably bring up the constitution in defense of whatever point, or to try and disprove somebody else's point. I've been in my fair share and then some of these debates, and it's not fun getting ambushed by an unexpected thing one didn't know about. I've read the USC in order to prevent that from happening. The 14th amendment comes up fairly often, so it's easy to remember, and Pablo Sanchez reminded me the other day which number went with the expanded rights one (9th).

But why are you arguing so often about American social issues? We're 2000 miles away (?)! Oh I know, I know! Because we're so awesome everyone talks about us.

Bzzztttt! Wrong! Clinton did not bring the DoMA legislation to the House or the Senate, the Republicans did in order to cast Clinton in a bad light in the eyes of liberals, but instead of vetoing it and giving the GOP more ammunition against him, he signed it. Showed great political acumen, and his charisma allowed him to get away with it with his liberal supporters. Politically it was a good move, even if it was not really principled and ethical. Shrub, on the other hand, is actively trying to push the ban through, on his own initiative. Try again.

Aha, you admit Bill Clinton SIGNED INTO LAW discriminatory legislation! He's a bad bad man.

Yes, I do, but in the case of the Bush administration and Bush personally, they have tried to legislate that personal faith into law.

Who cares where people are pulling their crazy laws from? Gotta come from somewhere. All that really matters is whether the laws are dumb or not. PS- banning gay marriage is dumb.

The separation of church and state is a very clear concept, and it means that rules with only a religious basis have no place in secular law, and that the church should stay the fuck out of government, and the government shouldn't interfere with the church unless it is to prevent illegal action by the church.

Nice words, but I don't see where it says that laws in the USA must have secular basis. Is that your INTERPRETATION?! You must be an activist judge. It might not be a bad idea, but it's certainly silly to think politicians won't use their personal faith in making decisions.

Are you familiar with the foundation principle of international law, one called sovereignty? According to that, you aren't allowed to willy nilly invade wherever you please just because the place is led by a bad man. The rulership of a nation is an internal affair of the nation in question, and as long as any troubles resulting from disputes over it or other actions stay inside the borders of that nation, then it's nobody else's business. There are ways for other countries to affect situations like that without the problems inherent in invading, and the international community has rules where the sovereignty of a nation can be overridden if enough countries agree to it.

Yes, he US invaded Iraq, and if you think that was an action the political leadership should be praised for elsewhere in the world, you have another think coming.

I was thinking more HITLER AND TOJO. Also, the Kaiser.

This line might work with somebody else, but it does not work on me. You see, the nation that preserved democracy here was none other than Germany, Hitler's Germany to be more precise. Without their support, Finland would have been overrun by your ally, the Soviet Union, and you'd have stood by and let it happen. You get credit for keeping the Soviets out from Western Europe after the defeat of Hitler, but you sure as fuck don't get credit for ensuring my country's freedom. That credit belongs to the Finns who fought a hard and brutal war, and the German soldiers who helped them keep the Soviets out. Germany's other actions during WW2 are a different matter, but their help to us is a bright spot on an otherwise horrendous record.

Ok, fine, the Germans saved Finland. Yippie skippie. But I'm glad you admit we SAVED WESTERN EUROPE. And I forgot we were responsible for the actions of our strange bedfellow, Russia. I mean, Roosevelt knew the Reds were bad, but what was he supposed to do, lecture them about territorial ambitions?

[Edi]

But why are you arguing so often about American social issues? We're 2000 miles away (?)! Oh I know, I know! Because we're so awesome everyone talks about us.

Fuck off. Debates about social issues (justification of death penalty, pros and cons of different types of health care systems, gun owenership and carrying permits, drug policies etc) are not limited to just debating the American versions. There can be a fruitful discussion about these things in general and their specific implementations in different countries, and when some participants are Americans, obviously the discussion is going to explore some aspects of their American versions, in which case the USC often comes to play as justification or reason for a particular detail. Doesn't mean I exclusively talk about American issues, so you can take that strawman of yours, set it on fire and cram it up your arse.

Aha, you admit Bill Clinton SIGNED INTO LAW discriminatory legislation! He's a bad bad man.

Yes, he did, in order to preempt a vicious character assassination more than anything else. However, HE DID NOT INTRODUCE THAT LEGISLATION. The GOP did. Furthermore, that legislation only says that states do not have to recognize gay marriages that have been performed and are valid someplace else, while Bush has publicly announced that he will outright ban any chance of gay marriage through an amendment to the USC.

So you can take another strawman, set it on fire and cram the flaming effigy sideways up your arse with a rake, you fucking troll.

Who cares where people are pulling their crazy laws from? Gotta come from somewhere. All that really matters is whether the laws are dumb or not. PS- banning gay marriage is dumb.

Nice try, but it still does not change the fact that you tried to absolve Bush and his administration of the blame on this issue with an attempt to paint his opponents and predecessor with the same brush by blatantly lying. It doesnt matter where good or bad proposals come from, they should be judged on their merits, but your attempt to tar your political opponents with lies shows that your sentiments in this issue are not exactly sincere.

The separation of church and state is a very clear concept, and it means that rules with only a religious basis have no place in secular law, and that the church should stay the fuck out of government, and the government shouldn't interfere with the church unless it is to prevent illegal action by the church.

Nice words, but I don't see where it says that laws in the USA must have secular basis. Is that your INTERPRETATION?! You must be an activist judge. It might not be a bad idea, but it's certainly silly to think politicians won't use their personal faith in making decisions.

!st amendment, USC. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion etc..." That passage is very clear. It is further clarified by the personal correspondence of several of the people who wrote that document, notably Jefferson and one other whose name escapes me at the moment. He states flat out that the intent is to keep the church out of government. Also, the SCOTUS happens to agree with my interpretation, which is the same as that of the people who put the 1st A into the USC.

There is also the fact that while personal faith may or may not guide politicians in making their decisions, it does not give them license to legislate religious rules (i.e. rules that have no non-religious justification) into law, because that would establish that religion (or parts of it) in law.

I was thinking more HITLER AND TOJO. Also, the Kaiser.

So? In the context of international law and sovereignty, there is exactly fuck-all difference with their invasions and the US invasion of Iraq.

Ok, fine, the Germans saved Finland. Yippie skippie. But I'm glad you admit we SAVED WESTERN EUROPE. And I forgot we were responsible for the actions of our strange bedfellow, Russia. I mean, Roosevelt knew the Reds were bad, but what was he supposed to do, lecture them about territorial ambitions?

Finland is culturally, though not geographically, part of Western Europe. Thing is, you and people like you are so very eager to trot out the argument how the US saved Europe and ensured freedom there and that therefore everybody in Europe should just roll over and do as America tells us to do, anmd let me tell you, it doesn't go down well for people like me whose countries got exactly zero help from yours. You fortunately made the distinction between Western Europe and whole Europe, so you're off the hook unless the cultural connotations of the term Western Europe are also used in determining who belongs where. I'm just telling you to be more aware of what the terms you use cover, or you will get seriously burned in debates. As for Roosevelt, he was in a position to actually lecture the Soviets about Finland, because US aid to the SU was rather vital at certain critical stages of the war.

Edi

[Uther]

Fuck off. Debates about social issues (justification of death penalty, pros and cons of different types of health care systems, gun owenership and carrying permits, drug policies etc) are not limited to just debating the American versions. There can be a fruitful discussion about these things in general and their specific implementations in different countries, and when some participants are Americans, obviously the discussion is going to explore some aspects of their American versions, in which case the USC often comes to play as justification or reason for a particular detail. Doesn't mean I exclusively talk about American issues, so you can take that strawman of yours, set it on fire and cram it up your arse.

Suuure. But honestly. When was the last time you debated Finland's lack of a death penatly?

Yes, he did, in order to preempt a vicious character assassination more than anything else. However, HE DID NOT INTRODUCE THAT LEGISLATION. The GOP did. Furthermore, that legislation only says that states do not have to recognize gay marriages that have been performed and are valid someplace else, while Bush has publicly announced that he will outright ban any chance of gay marriage through an amendment to the USC.

So you can take another strawman, set it on fire and cram the flaming effigy sideways up your arse with a rake, you fucking troll.

I see. So he was willing to sign into law discriminatory legislation that he didn't even believe in for POLITICAL GAIN! That stinks.

!st amendment, USC. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion etc..." That passage is very clear. It is further clarified by the personal correspondence of several of the people who wrote that document, notably Jefferson and one other whose name escapes me at the moment. He states flat out that the intent is to keep the church out of government. Also, the SCOTUS happens to agree with my interpretation, which is the same as that of the people who put the 1st A into the USC.

There is also the fact that while personal faith may or may not guide politicians in making their decisions, it does not give them license to legislate religious rules (i.e. rules that have no non-religious justification) into law, because that would establish that religion (or parts of it) in law.

Living document! Living document! Jefferson owned slaves man. I wouldn't worry about his views too much. I don't want my country to be chained to the ramblings of a two hundred years dead old slave sexing white man. Where the hell are law's justifications supposed to come from? English traditions of jurisprudence?! Common law precedents? Hahaha. They come from wherever politicians decide to poop them out this week.

So? In the context of international law and sovereignty, there is exactly fuck-all difference with their invasions and the US invasion of Iraq.

Hey, I'm not talking about Iraq. I'm just quietly suggesting we sometimes beat the crap out of dictators who had it coming.

Finland is culturally, though not geographically, part of Western Europe. Thing is, you and people like you are so very eager to trot out the argument how the US saved Europe and ensured freedom there and that therefore everybody in Europe should just roll over and do as America tells us to do, anmd let me tell you, it doesn't go down well for people like me whose countries got exactly zero help from yours. You fortunately made the distinction between Western Europe and whole Europe, so you're off the hook unless the cultural connotations of the term Western Europe are also used in determining who belongs where. I'm just telling you to be more aware of what the terms you use cover, or you will get seriously burned in debates. As for Roosevelt, he was in a position to actually lecture the Soviets about Finland, because US aid to the SU was rather vital at certain critical stages of the war.

Hey now, I don't want to get dragged into a debate here. Maybe Roosevelt should have done more to stop the Soviets, I don't know. It's certainly fair to suggest more should have been done.

[Butterbean569]

Let them move to Canada. I'm just as pissed about Bush winning and the ammendments being passed as most of you, but I don't think it's worth leaving the country. If they'll give up so easily, then we're better without them. Yes, we're better without them. They're sore losers and quitters, and that's the last thing we need here in America.

One disclaimer: If someone is moving to Canada to get married (gay), then I don't put them into the above catergory. The whole gay-marriage banning is bullshit, and worthy of leaving America if you are gay and want to get married.

I'm sure that, when they get to Canada, they'll realize "Well shit, it really isn't that different here than in America. Sure, Canada is more tolerent and Bush isn't the President...but boy I sure was wrong when I thought that after I crossed the border I would be in a scene straight out of the Sound of Music".

Think about it. How much does the government REALLY affect your day to day life? How much would moving from America to Canada really change things? There are differences, to be sure...but to say that either is better than the other by anything more than a slight margin is blatant Nationalism IMO

[Spyder]

Let them move to Canada. I'm just as pissed about Bush winning and the ammendments being passed as most of you, but I don't think it's worth leaving the country. If they'll give up so easily, then we're better without them. Yes, we're better without them. They're sore losers and quitters, and that's the last thing we need here in America.

There's nothing wrong with moving to another country because you're worried about the political situation in your existing country. Do you consider third world refugees quitters as well? It's up to each individual to live wherever they think they're going to have a good life. You calling them quitters is as if they have some rediculous obligation to try and help fix the problems that they perceive are starting to appear. Unless it's part of your job then no one has such an obligation to a system in desperate need of repair and if there is a better system over the boarder then it's only logical that they should change to it.