posted
mal, I would gain some respect for you if you acknowledged that you are wrong. You've been shown the data, the links, the citations, the sources. You can internalize them and change your mind, or ignore them and continue to be...well...ignorant.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Is it really that cut and dried? You have the right to refuse illegal orders in the military, no? In order to determine whether or not those orders are legal or illegal, wouldn't the legality have to be ascertained before they can decide if the soldier was right or wrong to refuse them?
I guess the crux comes in how far they're allowed to go to ascertain validity. Obama's actual order was not illegal in any sense that I can think of, so that's simple enough. But the solider is questioning the validity of Obama's powers to give the order in the first place. I'm not sure how that fits into the structure. Maybe Kwea or other vets could shed light on how the UCMJ operates in this area. It's been awhile since I've watched JAG.
It doesn't even matter, really. His orders come from his chain of command, and even if Obama wasn't American, he has been accepted as the CIC, and Congress has authorized action.
While Obama is the CIC, I'd bet this officer's orders are issued by his agency and his direct supervisors, and not obeying their orders is a violation of the UCMJ.
Even if the birthers don't believe the documents provided so far, it doesn't matter, because OUR COURTS do! So all that has to happen, at best, is that the documents already provided are shown to the court, and the officials who have already testified to their validity swear yet again they are valid, and the guy is screwed. He doesn't get a day in court.....court martial is a far cry from civilian court IRL. He doesn't get to make demands of his CIC.
He goes to jail. At best. In reality, he could be executed. He won't be, but it is actually considered treason to refuse a lawful order in a time of war....and thanks to Bush and Cheney there should be NO doubt that is what the government considers this to be....a time of war.
He is hoisted by his own petard.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We aren't at war. Congress didn't declare war.
Congress alone can't authorize any action. They can approve and fund the action that the Commander In Chief orders. The "action" originated with the CIC. Congress approved it. Congress cannot send troops to war.
We live in a country where an illegal immigrant who lives in Illinois can get in state college tuition while an American from Indiana has to pay twice as much. Obviously, citizenship laws are ignored. American Citizenship has been watered down to standing foot on American soil. Even a terrorist who was caught attempting to kill American citizens is given the "right to remain silent". The rights of an American citizen have been extended to everyone.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The rights of an American citizen have been extended to everyone.
And is that necessarily bad? Putting the issue of college tuition aside, isn't it true that we have certain rights, such as the right to free speech and a fair trial (which the right to remain silent is part of), because we believe that they are basic human rights?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: mal, you've ignored the bulk of the posts that have been directed at you.
I read them all and thought about them all. I replied. Next time I'll quote all ten and make ten posts.
Doesn't change the fact that citizenship means nothing. The system has granted all the rights of citizenship to anyone who happens to reside here. Illegal aliens get in state tuition, welfare and public education. Even terrorists get "OUR" miranda rights. In fact, citizenship is a disadvantage. The IRS knows who you are.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The rights of an American citizen have been extended to everyone.
And is that necessarily bad? Putting the issue of college tuition aside, isn't it true that we have certain rights, such as the right to free speech and a fair trial (which the right to remain silent is part of), because we believe that they are basic human rights?
Of course, put the tuition part aside since it illustrates the stupidity of accepting illegal aliens as citizens. Can you be a citizen of a state but not of the nation? Can you legally enter a state while illegally entering the country?
We do believe in basic human rights. Until the rest of the world catches up with us, their citizens will just have to suffer. Of course we're imperialists trying to impose our way of government on other nations. Evil America trying to bring Democracy to the middle east. Who are we to judge another nation and impose our basic human rights system of government on them? In America a shoplifter has the right to remain silent, there they are obliged to have their hands cut off.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who are we to judge another nation and impose our basic human rights system of government on them?
That's a different issue altogether. What I'm talking about is how we treat citizens of other nations when they're in our nation and under our jurisdiction. When a citizen of another nation is being tried in our courts, they should be given the same legal rights as an American being tried in our courts, including the right to remain silent.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. Deportation is a horrible thing. American prisons are so much better than the prisons in Columbia. At least here they are given food and medical care. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to put them on a flight to their home country.
GITMO waterboarding is nothing compared to what the Egyptian would endure in Egypt, if we returned him to his home country with the same list of charges. Ask the Chinese GITMO detainees where they wanted to go upon release.
If you want someone tortured, for real, send them home.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's always fun to watch mal give up on one point that he had been completely disproved about and switch to a completely different one, pretending that it's the same issue . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It's always fun to watch mal give up on one point that he had been completely disproved about and switch to a completely different one, pretending that it's the same issue . . .
Just because you can't comprehend that it is the same issue......
Citizenship means nothing in America. You think I've sidetracked the issue? The same people who argue that non US citizens be granted all the rights of citizens, are the same ones attacking the birther's claims.
If an illegal alien can get in state tuition while an American from another state pays double, an illegal alien under 35 should be eligible for presidency. If terrorists from other countries are given US Constitutional rights, citizenship is meaningless.
US citizenship laws are the most neglected laws of them all.
quote: American prisons are so much better than the prisons in Columbia
That's right, brother! South Carolina was the first to secede and will NEVER join the oppressive union!
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You entire argument is a cop out. The birther's claims are false, and he had no right to refuse direct orders from his chain of command. All of this other crap is just a smokescreen because every single point you made otherwise has been refuted, most with links and supporting documentation.
:::yawn:::: it's standard procedure for you, and a little boring at this point.
Thank God you, and people like you, don't get to define what is and isn't America for the rest of us.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
No, it's a flat-out lie. You absolutely will not directly respond to all points made to you attacking your 'arguments'. I know this because you have never done this. You almost certainly won't respond directly even to most of the points made against your arguments. You hardly ever do that.
Look at this thread. First your points were, "Why doesn't he refute these birther arguments? It'd be easy to do so, and they pose some serious, troubling questions." Within a matter of hours, it was shown conclusively that he had refuted those arguments, and even if he hadn't they weren't actually very serious or troubling to begin with except to the lunatic fringe.
Now, though, the argument has somehow become how American citizenship law is something which is helpless, and about terrorists getting rights when blah blah blah.
So, you can call it sarcasm all you like. That's not what it is, though. You're getting worked in this thread as usual, and as usual your defense is to behave as though your critics are ridiculous without ever actually refuting their statements.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can see, mal, your college example (which you have admittedly put aside), is merely state residency trumping federal citizenship. It's actually a (tiny) triumph for State's Rights over the Federal hegemony.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Congress alone can't authorize any action. They can approve and fund the action that the Commander In Chief orders. The "action" originated with the CIC. Congress approved it. Congress cannot send troops to war.
FMI, why is "authorize" different from "approve?"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Even a terrorist who was caught attempting to kill American citizens is given the "right to remain silent". The rights of an American citizen have been extended to everyone.
The Declaration states:
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
For an alleged patriot, you know very little about the philosophy of our government.
FYI: the Constitution is not exclusive to American citizens. It was very deliberately meant to apply to everyone who set foot in America. Stop being such a putz.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the Constitution is not exclusive to American citizens. It was very deliberately meant to apply to everyone who set foot in America.
Can you explain this?
That is-- certain parts of the Constitution apply to everyone in America: the right to free speech, the right to practice their own religion.
Other things in the Constitution are not permitted to non-citizens: the right to vote, the right to hold certain public offices, for example.
Let's not get carried away here...there are definite advantages to being an American in America, and some of those advantages are exclusive, and protected by the Constitution.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a little more nuanced than that; the Constitution uses the terms citizen and person in different contexts, with precision. (In fact, a typical phrasing boils down to "no person who is not a citizen").
Most of the rights provided for are phrased in terms of persons, not citizens. Additionally, I believe the discussion around ratification included fairly significant discussion of the issues.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea sums up the case for me reasonably well - the officer is, of course, free to make a stand for his belief.
He must also be willing to accept the consequences for those actions - at the very least, he is disobeying lawful orders by the officers placed over him.
Whether or not the President meets all the legal requirements, for me, is a moot point. Those questions could have and should have been raised during the election.
Barring proof coming to light after the fact, it's a little late to be asking questions. Particularly from the military sworn to serve.
quote:the Constitution is not exclusive to American citizens. It was very deliberately meant to apply to everyone who set foot in America.
Can you explain this?
That is-- certain parts of the Constitution apply to everyone in America: the right to free speech, the right to practice their own religion.
Other things in the Constitution are not permitted to non-citizens: the right to vote, the right to hold certain public offices, for example.
Let's not get carried away here...there are definite advantages to being an American in America, and some of those advantages are exclusive, and protected by the Constitution.
The constitution, with all its enumerated rights, applies to everyone. Its limitations, as enumerated, also apply. I'm simply responding to the idea that the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, is for Americans only.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If you want someone tortured, for real, send them home.
But that's the magic of a place like gitmo, is that it meant that they could be tortured for real by the united states.
I can see why you are ignoring that consideration, though I'm wondering if you believe we didn't torture people 'for real.' Or if there's some other inane parcel of malanthropification at work.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The constitution, with all its enumerated rights, applies to everyone. Its limitations, as enumerated, also apply. I'm simply responding to the idea that the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, is for Americans only.
Or even for Americans at all. When non-citizens are exempted from the Bill of Rights, you can be sure citizens are next. Anwar al Awlaki, a US citizen, is now on the "kill or capture" hit list.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh. If he is abetting a foreign enemy, then he's a traitor. You do have to pick your battles, I think. A person operating outside the United States, in conflict *with* the United States- I don't honestly know what their rights are at that point. If he's caught, he has the right to a trial.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do we know he's abetting a foreign enemy? His American father has gone to the press claiming the accusations are false.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If you want someone tortured, for real, send them home.
But that's the magic of a place like gitmo, is that it meant that they could be tortured for real by the united states.
I can see why you are ignoring that consideration, though I'm wondering if you believe we didn't torture people 'for real.' Or if there's some other inane parcel of malanthropification at work.
I think I will have fun tonight defining malanthropification. LOL
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: How do we know he's abetting a foreign enemy? His American father has gone to the press claiming the accusations are false.
I can't know personally. I do have enough faith in the government to make that judgment when necessary. I don't know enough about the facts of the case to say what I think about the validity of the accusation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the Constitution is not exclusive to American citizens. It was very deliberately meant to apply to everyone who set foot in America.
Can you explain this?
That is-- certain parts of the Constitution apply to everyone in America: the right to free speech, the right to practice their own religion.
Other things in the Constitution are not permitted to non-citizens: the right to vote, the right to hold certain public offices, for example.
Let's not get carried away here...there are definite advantages to being an American in America, and some of those advantages are exclusive, and protected by the Constitution.
Washington State has a "Motor Voter" law. In Washington, an electric bill with your name on it gets you a drivers license and with it, automatic voter registration. I didn't really think about it much until Florida refused to accept my WA driver's license as proof of citizenship. FL has a list of states that grant licenses to illegal aliens. Had I come from Texas, they would've issues me a FL license with no questions asked. Since I had a WA license, I had to order my birth certificate. Illegal aliens do have the right to vote, in many states.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
My post for the year: Taking a break from studying finals, I decided to randomly browse around here, and found this wonderful thread. I haven't laughed so hard in some time. Thank you, Hatrack (and a certain, unnamed individual in this thread!), for making my day Posts: 8 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Washington State has a "Motor Voter" law. In Washington, an electric bill with your name on it gets you a drivers license and with it, automatic voter registration.
I've also obtained a license in WA state. Since you had one as well, you must be aware that what you wrote isn't actually true. You would have to be aware of it, because you yourself would have had to meet those requirements.
An electric bill may be sufficient to show residency in WA state. There are other identification requirements as well.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Washington State has a "Motor Voter" law. In Washington, an electric bill with your name on it gets you a drivers license and with it, automatic voter registration.
I've also obtained a license in WA state. Since you had one as well, you must be aware that what you wrote isn't actually true. You would have to be aware of it, because you yourself would have had to meet those requirements.
An electric bill may be sufficient to show residency in WA state. There are other identification requirements as well.
Re: "must be aware" -
earlier on, he demonstrated that he either did not know how his own taxes worked, or was lying about how he filed them too.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know, I actually thought about that one for a few seconds before I wrote it.
It could be possible that he unwittingly obtained his license illegally - the guileless beneficiary of a Department of Licensing employee's bizarre and random generosity.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. Considering his past posting history, it's more likely that he is deliberately discarding any facts that refute his premise.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I just had to giggle at the idea of some DMV worker standing behind his desk, a crazed gleam in his eye, thinking "Number 466 is it? I'm not going to ask THIS one for his social security card! But 467 is getting referred to Fish ad Wildlife, the fool! MUAHAHAHAHA!"
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They will have to prove that his claims are false. They will have to prove that the president is a citizen in order to convict this officer.
All the proof needed to decide that issue is his birth certificate -- which he has already made public, which the state of Hawaii has verified as valid and which the courts have already ruled on.
The question has already been decided by the courts. Its no longer a question unless you are a loon.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Afterall, he can use a negro dialect when he wants to
Mal, one question... what, exactly is a "negro dialect"? If you are referring to what has been previously called "ebonix", that isn't necessarily a "negro dialect" as people of all races and colors talk that way everyday in numerous cities throughout the US. That statement alone makes me think that you are either prejudiced or ignorant. Ignorant would be the better alternative, but reading your comments makes me think both are true.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are referring to what has been previously called "ebonix", that isn't necessarily a "negro dialect" as people of all races and colors talk that way everyday in numerous cities throughout the US.
Okay, so I know Wikipedia isn't a highly reputable source, but it does say this:
quote:Ebonics is a term that was originally intended to refer to the language of all people descended from Black African slaves, particularly in West Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. Over time, and especially since 1996, it has been used more often to refer to African American Vernacular English
Which mirrors other definitions that I've seen of ebonics. Although you can nitpick, it does generally refer to a vernacular spoken by African Americans, not other groups.
I agree that "negro dialect" is not the way to put it though.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's how it started, perhaps, but I believe that Jenni's point was that at this time a lot of people who are not black speak that way. It's more of a city thing at this point than a race thing.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to be clear, JenniK, I would direct that question not to Mal, but to Harry Reid. Mal's parroting a term Reid used to describe Obama, in an attempt to illustrate that the side that is ostensibly less racist is the side that has, of late, produced several high-publicity figures making racist-sounding remarks.
Google "negro dialect" and the very first hit will involve Senator Reid.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He can define it however he wants. Doesn't mean I, or my wife, agree with the term, or with the racist sentiment behind it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That's how it started, perhaps, but I believe that Jenni's point was that at this time a lot of people who are not black speak that way. It's more of a city thing at this point than a race thing.
I don't know how far I agree with that conclusion. Even if a lot of people do it, I tend to still think it's about race. It's maybe not the sole property of a single race, but it's all still *about* race, right? Ebonics, whatever it is, is recognized as a dialect with a specific class and racial history. Speaking it has significance to people- or maybe the fact that people speak it is a greater remark upon them and their collective history. I wouldn't be so quick to discount it as not having a lot of significance in regards to race or race relations.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, illegal aliens do not have the right to vote, in any state. Voter fraud, Mal, is a crime.
This man speaks the truth.
It is federally illegal but if a state registers you to vote for presenting a library card.....who's breaking the law? It's also illegal to be in this country "illegally" they get welfare benefits and public education, non-the-less.
The "requirements" aren't necessarilly backed up by "proof". Although WA has a requirement that you are a citizen, an electric bill is proof of residency. They automatically assume that if you are a local resident, you are a resident of the nation. An electric bill gets you a drivers license and a voter's registration card.
I didn't think about this until FL refused to give me a driver's license based solely upon my WA license. They accept the licenses of 41 states as proof of residency. I had to order my birth certificate in order to get a FL drivers license. WA and 8 other states will accept a piece of mail as proof of residency and FL refuses to accept those states driver's licenses as proof.
Is marijuana legal in Amsterdam?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: He can define it however he wants. Doesn't mean I, or my wife, agree with the term, or with the racist sentiment behind it.
Was this directed at me? I'm not sure I understand. Not trying to be a smart aleck here, I just don't quite understand what you're saying. Could you elaborate a little? Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
