news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...386357.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3386357.stm)

Bout time, too.
So whatcha think Hartmut you fuck?

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

those fukers!

Bout time, too.
This still doesn't excuse the Patriot Act. So much for a strict republican/conservative. I really don't give a fuck about the war, but taking away my freedom in the name of safety is ass.

Interestingly enough the Supreme Court ruled many of the items in this as unconstitutional. Such as holding a citizen without representation indefinitely. All the Bush lovers say "well yea but he wont do anything bad with it". Hmm I wonder.

10-year old WMD...this isn't the proof we need.

It does show Saddam had a very liberal definition for "destroy" though.

I would like to see what parts of the patriot act have been declared unconstitutional.

Toss me a link.

I'm not completely sure about this either way,,

You don't destroy a blister agent by wrapping shells in plastic and burying them in the desert. And a 10 year timeframe would put this back after the first Gulf War and during the inspectors time.

They could have been trying to hide them.

Interesting. Wonder what else is buried out in the desert..... that could take years and years (if ever) to be found.

--Namie

www.iowastatedaily.com/vn...16b673276b (http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/06/20/3d116b673276b)

www.subliminalnews.com/ar...000108.php (http://www.subliminalnews.com/archives/000108.php) <=== this is the direct link to the actual ruling.

Its kinda interesting considering people didnt even know this was going on. Patriot Act my ass. Nationalism Act is more like it. America cannot and must not give up the freedoms the Troops in Iraq or anywhere fight for.

Dont cry to me about the dangers of terrorism then support carte blanche government control over private citizens. In that society TERROR has already won the day. 1984 is not a far cry from what this bill could present us with if allowed to go unchallanged. Good for the Supreme Court.

No where in that ruling is the Patriot Act mentioned, so you cannot use that as evidence it was ruled unconstitutional. Bush isn't using the Patriot Act to detain them.

Bush is holding two "citizens" as enemy combatants. I use that word with bile in my mouth. If their civil liberties are being denied .. well, boo hoo.

It'll be worked out. We have three branches of government that watch each other pretty nicely.

Patriot Act my ass. Nationalism Act is more like it.
I sure very much agree here
*crawls back under his rock*

Yep. Nothing at all to do with the patriot act(I encourage you to actually read it bowler, what you are trying to accuse it of is actually not in it at all).

This wasn't even the supreme court, an appeals court ruled that jose there wasn't an enemy combatant...a decision which is going to be appealed to the supreme court.

In case you didn't already know the so-called Patriot act has been on the books for a long time. It was put in place to track members of the mob and bootleggers. All Bush did was widen the scope with the Patriot Act to be able to search library records, tap phones and all that other stuff to suspected terrorists.

Rigin

I did read it and Supreme Court was my mistake. I cant believe anyone would want the president to have that power! You say "good take away their rights because we think they might have a connection to a terrorist" well I saw you playing with something that looked like a bomb! Time to go to jail forever.

"Its the suede denim secret police, they have come for your uncool niece."

You are an idiot if you think the ability to detain a Citizen without trial or evidence is a good thing. If you are so blinded by your own fear then welcome to the future. Watch your freedoms bleed away.

You all scurry around and pick at my words but dont have a clue what the meaning of all that is.

All Bush did was widen the scope with the Patriot Act to be able to search library records, tap phones and all that other stuff to suspected terrorists
Do you even realize how ignorant it is to say that? Who says who is a terrorist and who isnt. Bush does? Apparently all us Americans think that is a good enough a reason.

Anybody on this board wanna give me the power to ban anyone I want without questions or accountability? What would that cause!

Who is to say your not a member of the mob? Or a bootlegger?

All I am saying is that it is foolish for everyone to be up in arms about the Patriot Act. It was there before just some wording changes were made.

As weird as this is gonna sound, especially coming from a (more or less) Republican, I'm gonna have to agree with Bowler on this one.

Who is to say your not a member of the mob? Or a bootlegger?
My entire point is that NOBODY can say that without a trial. Your advocating behaviour that would allow the president to do just that. O look I think your a terrorist, go to jail.

especially coming from a (more or less) Republican
Actually Im pretty Republican and its the republican in me that will NOT accept being told its okay to arrest and hold without evidence or trial. Regardless of what party he "says" he is part of, Bush is acting very NOT republican. We wont even mention the crap he is trying to pass regarding illegal immigrants.

By the time its too late it wont matter anymore because I would be labeled a terrorist and incarcerated forever just because I posted this. If you say "Well Bush would never do that" my response is, with the policy in place, maybe the next Clinton type president would and once its done we are all in deep shit.

However, US officials played down the find, saying the shells were probably left over from Saddam Hussein's 1980-88 war with Iran.

You know, the war in which the US funded Iraq against Iran?

Yes, it looks like they wheren't destroyed. But, they sure wheren't in usable condition, having been buried that long.

The thing is, the White House claimed to KNOW than Iraq was developing WMD. And they where lieing, at most they suspected it.

They invaded Iraq as part of the neo-conservative strategy to bring about a stable world situation, with the US on top. Nothing horribly wrong about it, but I'm guessing most Americans don't want their children been sent off to build an empire.

They invaded Iraq as part of the neo-conservative strategy to bring about a stable world situation, with the US on top. Nothing horribly wrong about it, but I'm guessing most Americans don't want their children been sent off to build an empire.
Fuck yea we do. Burn the world at our feet.

be able to search library records, tap phones and all that other stuff to suspected terrorists.


To clarify, it allows police to tap/search all of a person's lines of communication (computer, cell phone, land line, etc) by going to a judge and getting a warrant - after there is already a warrant to tap one of them.


Who says who is a terrorist and who isnt.


A judge says there is enough evidence for a warrant. Then they have to go back to a judge to have him say there is enough evidence to expand the warrant.

Any clearer for you?

Funny thing is, all you right wing a$$holes seem to forget that those munitions were probably left over from the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s.

You know the war in which we (THE USA), supplied munitions to Iraq so they could fight Iran.

This isn't the smoking gun, because W would have had a prime time press conference about this.

The agenda from day one is that we (THE USA) should remove Sadam Hussain. WMD had nothing to do with that, it was just a lie to get the American sheep/people behind his cause.

Hmm, lie about a thing that will send hundreds if not thousands of people to their deaths, or lie about getting a blow job. Which is worse I wonder?

Funny thing is, all you right wing a$$holes seem to forget that those munitions were probably left over from the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s.

No, the funny thing is .. we read that in the article 6 days ago. Glad you could join us dumbass.

However, US officials played down the find, saying the shells were probably left over from Saddam Hussein's 1980-88 war with Iran.

The coalition has yet to uncover proof that Iraq was still developing weapons at the time of the war last spring.

Read the fucking article to understand what us right wing assholes think etc...

...but why would you do that, when you could not.

A judge says there is enough evidence for a warrant. Then they have to go back to a judge to have him say there is enough evidence to expand the warrant.
Absolutely, thats enough for me to wanna go to jail forever with no trial or representation. Do you realize there is no check and balance on this? So they searched and siezed illegally without a warrant, without a trial or a lawyer who will ever know? Oops they are just gone. Anyone wanna investigate why they are gone. Dont look too close or another "search" might be in order.

Who has the power to stop it? NOBODY AND ITS LEGAL AND YOU LIKE IT THAT WAY. dumbass!