Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-02-18 at 21:09:34
Well do they fight by Geneva convention rules? Does the Geneva convention apply to these people? Techniqually no...
And they lose their rights when they starting helping terrorists or became terrorists. You lose your human rights when you kill other human noncombants intentionally.
And they lose their rights when they starting helping terrorists or became terrorists. You lose your human rights when you kill other human noncombants intentionally.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-02-18 at 23:18:03
There lies the problem. They are not given a trial; technically, you cannot claim they are terrorists until they know for sure.
As for the other part, the Geneva Conventions should apply because it applies to "Prisoners of War". However, the Bush administration seem to have cheated by naming them something else. Are they not prisoners of war?
Note: If anyone wants to discuss about something, PM me the subject. Make sure it's current events!
We need to make these weekly again!
As for the other part, the Geneva Conventions should apply because it applies to "Prisoners of War". However, the Bush administration seem to have cheated by naming them something else. Are they not prisoners of war?
Note: If anyone wants to discuss about something, PM me the subject. Make sure it's current events!
We need to make these weekly again!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-02-19 at 01:37:52
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Feb 18 2006, 08:18 PM)
There lies the problem. They are not given a trial; technically, you cannot claim they are terrorists until they know for sure.
As for the other part, the Geneva Conventions should apply because it applies to "Prisoners of War". However, the Bush administration seem to have cheated by naming them something else. Are they not prisoners of war?
Note: If anyone wants to discuss about something, PM me the subject. Make sure it's current events!
We need to make these weekly again!
[right][snapback]430187[/snapback][/right]
As for the other part, the Geneva Conventions should apply because it applies to "Prisoners of War". However, the Bush administration seem to have cheated by naming them something else. Are they not prisoners of war?
Note: If anyone wants to discuss about something, PM me the subject. Make sure it's current events!
We need to make these weekly again!
[right][snapback]430187[/snapback][/right]
Well Cheeze, isn't to be labeled a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention you must first by recognized by it. The convention is pretty specific when it comes to rules. I think it was made(not directly a reason, a sub benefit) to help encourage people to fight respectfully.
I think that why we are also holding them with out a trial. We want to find out if they are acutally a terrorist (most are, some are hazy) when we have them. Wouldn't you rather hold somebody and find out they are a terrorist (if your wrong, all you did was piss some people off and pay some law suites) then have that possible terrorist kill 1,200 in a drug attack? Well I would rather have those people hate me then have then be dead.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-02-19 at 01:52:04
QUOTE
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Feb 18 2006, 03:48 PM)
We are talking about physical torture. Not crappy pop music. Crappy pop music isn't auditory torture, people get used to a type of music whether they want to or not.
[right][snapback]429992[/snapback][/right]
Yes, and at Gitmo we aren't physically torturing them....
You just proved my point
[right][snapback]430028[/snapback][/right]
Proof? Besdies sleep deprivation is torture, no two ways about it.
QUOTE
If a terrorist could get an American in their prison, the American would be physically totured (cut off fingers, beatings, etc.).
So if person A shoots your friend, you should have the legal right to shoot them? Unfortunately, that's not how the civilized world works. Just because terrorist treat us cruelly doesn't mean we must or we should treat them cruelly.
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Feb 18 2006, 10:37 PM)
Well Cheeze, isn't to be labeled a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention you must first by recognized by it. The convention is pretty specific when it comes to rules. I think it was made(not directly a reason, a sub benefit) to help encourage people to fight respectfully.
[right][snapback]430252[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]430252[/snapback][/right]
The Japanese held Americans during WWII in situations that broke the Geneva Convention. Did that mean we broke it too and tortured Japanese POWs? No. Why do we have to get dirty now?
No human being deserves torture. I don't care what they supposedly did, a "righteous" country such as ourselves should have the honor to uphold due process.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-02-19 at 02:18:00
QUOTE
Well Cheeze, isn't to be labeled a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention you must first by recognized by it. The convention is pretty specific when it comes to rules. I think it was made(not directly a reason, a sub benefit) to help encourage people to fight respectfully.
I think that why we are also holding them with out a trial.
I think that why we are also holding them with out a trial.
Just because some people of the same race or belief did something (unimaginable), they aren't given trials? Where is this logic coming from?
QUOTE
We want to find out if they are acutally a terrorist (most are, some are hazy) when we have them.
You admit that some are not terrorists (In fact, most of them are not, if any). Thus, they should all get a trial as soon as possible to remove those who are innocent.
QUOTE
Wouldn't you rather hold somebody and find out they are a terrorist (if your wrong, all you did was piss some people off and pay some law suites) then have that possible terrorist kill 1,200 in a drug attack?
Yes, which is why we go back to my main point. That they should be given trials.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2006-02-19 at 03:51:31
QUOTE(The_Daddy)
The convention is pretty specific when it comes to rules. I think it was made(not directly a reason, a sub benefit) to help encourage people to fight respectfully.
Then why don't we follow their rules?
QUOTE(DTBK)
So if person A shoots your friend, you should have the legal right to shoot them? Unfortunately, that's not how the civilized world works. Just because terrorist treat us cruelly doesn't mean we must or we should treat them cruelly.
That means Japanese have all rights to be meanies to us. We detained them in WWII in our own concetration camps here on U.S. soil, and were complete meanies to them, and ignored the convention.
Edit: Where the hell did the word a s s hole go? Meanies? WTF is up with that gay ass shiz!?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-02-19 at 13:31:50
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser)
Proof? Besdies sleep deprivation is torture, no two ways about it.
So if person A shoots your friend, you should have the legal right to shoot them? Unfortunately, that's not how the civilized world works. Just because terrorist treat us cruelly doesn't mean we must or we should treat them cruelly.
The Japanese held Americans during WWII in situations that broke the Geneva Convention. Did that mean we broke it too and tortured Japanese POWs? No. Why do we have to get dirty now?
No human being deserves torture. I don't care what they supposedly did, a "righteous" country such as ourselves should have the honor to uphold due process.
So if person A shoots your friend, you should have the legal right to shoot them? Unfortunately, that's not how the civilized world works. Just because terrorist treat us cruelly doesn't mean we must or we should treat them cruelly.
The Japanese held Americans during WWII in situations that broke the Geneva Convention. Did that mean we broke it too and tortured Japanese POWs? No. Why do we have to get dirty now?
No human being deserves torture. I don't care what they supposedly did, a "righteous" country such as ourselves should have the honor to uphold due process.
I don't have to prove anything, its already fact. You go search it yourself. And its not like we treating them like this for fun. Do you honestly think we do this just for kicks? Think real hard...
QUOTE(CheeZe)
Just because some people of the same race or belief did something (unimaginable), they aren't given trials? Where is this logic coming from?
You admit that some are not terrorists (In fact, most of them are not, if any). Thus, they should all get a trial as soon as possible to remove those who are innocent.
Yes, which is why we go back to my main point. That they should be given trials.
You admit that some are not terrorists (In fact, most of them are not, if any). Thus, they should all get a trial as soon as possible to remove those who are innocent.
Yes, which is why we go back to my main point. That they should be given trials.
Cheeze, prove that most of them are not terrorists. Well most of them aren't terrorists themselfs, but funded terrorists(if anything). And Cheeze, these guys are worse then the Mafia, NO ONE will testify against a terrorists, if they do their whole FAMILY (every single relative and themselfs) will be killed. We hold them until we know they are a terrorist, when we think there is evidence that they are not, we let them go. We already gave them a battlefield trial, and they were guilty. (look deep in that meaning)
QUOTE(Zordon)
Then why don't we follow their rules?
[right][snapback]430276[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]430276[/snapback][/right]
We are hahaha, the terrorists aren't recoginized by the Geneva Convention so we don't apply it to them! Thats following the rules pretty hard-butt (censor)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-02-19 at 17:19:58
QUOTE
Cheeze, prove that most of them are not terrorists.
...
And Cheeze, these guys are worse then the Mafia, NO ONE will testify against a terrorists, if they do their whole FAMILY (every single relative and themselfs) will be killed.
...
And Cheeze, these guys are worse then the Mafia, NO ONE will testify against a terrorists, if they do their whole FAMILY (every single relative and themselfs) will be killed.
Ah, but now the burden of proof is on you. You must prove that they are terrorists!
As I said, a trial would be necessary. Testimonies can be given anonymously (as seen from the Saddam trial) to protect themselves and their families. What you are suggesting is unconstitutional and unnatural.
If you were detained, would you not want to know why?
QUOTE
Well most of them aren't terrorists themselfs, but funded terrorists(if anything).
Now you're making assumptions. Proof? You can't have any because they aren't given a trial! I've caught you in the entire circle. Your entire argument relies upon the fact that they are terrorists; you can't prove this because they are not given a trial.
I simply don't see how you can disagree on them not deserving a trial, as declared on the Fifth Amendment (The "exception" is for those who are on the armies already as these people are not).
QUOTE
We hold them until we know they are a terrorist, when we think there is evidence that they are not, we let them go.
So we should hold anyone who we think to be a terrorist? Every single person on this world has potential to be a terrorist; by your logic, we shall detain them all because they could kill us.
By the way, I thought American courts worked so that a person is "innocent until proven guilty", not "guily until proven innocent". Maybe I'm mistaken?
QUOTE
We already gave them a battlefield trial, and they were guilty. (look deep in that meaning)
Battlefield? You mean entering random people's homes and shipping them off here? You call that a test on the battlefield? You really should do some research on what's actually happening.
Please note that my conclusion is that everyone at Guantanamo should be given a trial with a jury and lawyers. Don't get confused between this and closing Guantanamo Bay.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2006-02-19 at 17:21:36
QUOTE(The_Daddy)
We are hahaha, the terrorists aren't recoginized by the Geneva Convention so we don't apply it to them! Thats following the rules pretty hard-butt (censor)
You do realize we are terrorists, too. Don't you?
Maybe that's why they don't abide by the rules, either. -_-
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-02-19 at 17:50:13
QUOTE
I don't have to prove anything, its already fact. You go search it yourself. And its not like we treating them like this for fun. Do you honestly think we do this just for kicks? Think real hard...
It doesn't matter why we torture them, it matters that we do.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-02-19 at 18:25:49
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Feb 19 2006, 02:19 PM)
Ah, but now the burden of proof is on you. You must prove that they are terrorists!
As I said, a trial would be necessary. Testimonies can be given anonymously (as seen from the Saddam trial) to protect themselves and their families. What you are suggesting is unconstitutional and unnatural.
If you were detained, would you not want to know why?
Now you're making assumptions. Proof? You can't have any because they aren't given a trial! I've caught you in the entire circle. Your entire argument relies upon the fact that they are terrorists; you can't prove this because they are not given a trial.
I simply don't see how you can disagree on them not deserving a trial, as declared on the Fifth Amendment (The "exception" is for those who are on the armies already as these people are not).
So we should hold anyone who we think to be a terrorist? Every single person on this world has potential to be a terrorist; by your logic, we shall detain them all because they could kill us.
By the way, I thought American courts worked so that a person is "innocent until proven guilty", not "guily until proven innocent". Maybe I'm mistaken?
Battlefield? You mean entering random people's homes and shipping them off here? You call that a test on the battlefield? You really should do some research on what's actually happening.
Please note that my conclusion is that everyone at Guantanamo should be given a trial with a jury and lawyers. Don't get confused between this and closing Guantanamo Bay.
[right][snapback]430641[/snapback][/right]
As I said, a trial would be necessary. Testimonies can be given anonymously (as seen from the Saddam trial) to protect themselves and their families. What you are suggesting is unconstitutional and unnatural.
If you were detained, would you not want to know why?
Now you're making assumptions. Proof? You can't have any because they aren't given a trial! I've caught you in the entire circle. Your entire argument relies upon the fact that they are terrorists; you can't prove this because they are not given a trial.
I simply don't see how you can disagree on them not deserving a trial, as declared on the Fifth Amendment (The "exception" is for those who are on the armies already as these people are not).
So we should hold anyone who we think to be a terrorist? Every single person on this world has potential to be a terrorist; by your logic, we shall detain them all because they could kill us.
By the way, I thought American courts worked so that a person is "innocent until proven guilty", not "guily until proven innocent". Maybe I'm mistaken?
Battlefield? You mean entering random people's homes and shipping them off here? You call that a test on the battlefield? You really should do some research on what's actually happening.
Please note that my conclusion is that everyone at Guantanamo should be given a trial with a jury and lawyers. Don't get confused between this and closing Guantanamo Bay.
[right][snapback]430641[/snapback][/right]
No, its fact that there are terrorists in the prison. The burden of proof is on you becuase your statement was an assumption saying that most are not terrorists.
Your also trying to apply American laws on people who aren't American. Thats like saying I can drink beer at 16 becuase some European country's allow that, so I apply their laws over mine.
And if I was detained I would know exactly why
You would have to go to great lengths to be arrested as a terrorist.And my logic is based upon what people have ALREADY done, not what they COULD do, don't think you know what my logic is.
And if you think we are entering random people's homes and shipping them off, then you are the one who needs to do some research
If we did what you stated, then we would have hundreds of thousands(even millions 
) of prisoners, which is not the case.Cheeze, they probably should have a trial, but I don't see how that would fix anything, to even convince a person to testify, even if anonymously, there is rapid fear. I just see a trial as a way for guilty men to be set free and giving them what they want.
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Feb 19 2006, 02:50 PM)
It doesn't matter why we torture them, it matters that we do.
[right][snapback]430681[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]430681[/snapback][/right]
Very wrong. For one these tortures are not tortures, and two it does matter why.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-02-19 at 18:30:30
So you believe that under certain circumstances it is morally right to torture another human?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-02-19 at 18:35:56
Mentally yes, not for no reason, like if a bomb was going to explode and kill 1 thousand people at the Rose Bowl parade in 1 hour and we had a dude who know where the bomb was, then yes, I would fark him up, mess with his mind. Almost anything none physicall to get my information to stop the attack.
I would rather have a person mad at me then have them dead.
I would rather have a person mad at me then have them dead.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-02-19 at 18:35:58
QUOTE
So if person A shoots your friend, you should have the legal right to shoot them? Unfortunately, that's not how the civilized world works.
You could if person A was likely to shoot you next or your trying to save your friend.
btw, in post 31, zordon did censor evasion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-02-19 at 18:56:17
QUOTE
No, its fact that there are terrorists in the prison. The burden of proof is on you becuase your statement was an assumption saying that most are not terrorists.
All right, I'll even let you have the fact that there are terrorists. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is still on you to prove the other detainees are terrorists as well.
QUOTE
Your also trying to apply American laws on people who aren't American. Thats like saying I can drink beer at 16 becuase some European country's allow that, so I apply their laws over mine.
Why would you deny human beings their basic rights? Isn't it morally wrong to detain a person that has not been charged with anything? I'm not talking about a person who has had dealings with terrorists, I'm talking about a person who has absolutely no relationship with anything that want to live out normal lives.
There are normal people who have clear records at Guantanamo. You can't possibly tell me that it's morally ok to keep them.
How do I know there are normal people? Research:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...13-095958-4072r
For more:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&i...tnG=Search+News
QUOTE
And if I was detained I would know exactly why disgust.gif You would have to go to great lengths to be arrested as a terrorist.
Apparantly not, as shown by above. Five muslims were detained for fours years without a charge. Now they have no where to go.
QUOTE
And my logic is based upon what people have ALREADY done, not what they COULD do, don't think you know what my logic is.
Oh good, you agree with me then. A trial would be perfect. It would separate those who have done something and those who have not.
QUOTE
Cheeze, they probably should have a trial, but I don't see how that would fix anything, to even convince a person to testify, even if anonymously, there is rapid fear. I just see a trial as a way for guilty men to be set free and giving them what they want.
Are you have doubts about the American courts system?
If so, then I don't see how can you even trust the Bush administration.
If not, then why do you sound like you don't trust the courts to judge upon these detainees?
QUOTE
You could if person A was likely to shoot you next or your trying to save your friend.
No, you still don't have the legal rights. However, under the circumstances, if you were to go to court, it would be extremely difficult in finding you to be guilty.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2006-02-19 at 18:59:00
QUOTE(The_Daddy)
No, its fact that there are terrorists in the prison. The burden of proof is on you becuase your statement was an assumption saying that most are not terrorists.
No. The burdon of proof is on you for accusations that they are terrorists. He never ONCE SAID they were terrorists. He made claims that they should have trials to see if they are terrorists.
You need to read more.
QUOTE(Dumbfarkingducky)
btw, in post 31, zordon did censor evasion.
Boo hoo.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-02-19 at 20:38:06
QUOTE(CheeZe)
All right, I'll even let you have the fact that there are terrorists. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is still on you to prove the other detainees are terrorists as well.
Why would you deny human beings their basic rights? Isn't it morally wrong to detain a person that has not been charged with anything? I'm not talking about a person who has had dealings with terrorists, I'm talking about a person who has absolutely no relationship with anything that want to live out normal lives.
Why would you deny human beings their basic rights? Isn't it morally wrong to detain a person that has not been charged with anything? I'm not talking about a person who has had dealings with terrorists, I'm talking about a person who has absolutely no relationship with anything that want to live out normal lives.
Well my statement was that there are terrorists in Gitmo, not that all of them are. So really do I have to prove that all of them are when I have no arguement for that statement?
QUOTE(Cheeze)
There are normal people who have clear records at Guantanamo. You can't possibly tell me that it's morally ok to keep them.
The terrorist stay, the normal people we let out. This system is working.
QUOTE(Cheeze)
How do I know there are normal people? Research:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...13-095958-4072r
For more:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&i...tnG=Search+News
Apparantly not, as shown by above. Five muslims were detained for fours years without a charge. Now they have no where to go.
Oh good, you agree with me then. A trial would be perfect. It would separate those who have done something and those who have not.
Are you have doubts about the American courts system?
If so, then I don't see how can you even trust the Bush administration.
If not, then why do you sound like you don't trust the courts to judge upon these detainees?
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...13-095958-4072r
For more:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&i...tnG=Search+News
Apparantly not, as shown by above. Five muslims were detained for fours years without a charge. Now they have no where to go.
Oh good, you agree with me then. A trial would be perfect. It would separate those who have done something and those who have not.
Are you have doubts about the American courts system?
If so, then I don't see how can you even trust the Bush administration.
If not, then why do you sound like you don't trust the courts to judge upon these detainees?
I trust American courts with local hearings. I do not trust international courts becuase, like I said there is fear, our system without courts is working, the normal people, even if slowly, are getting released. The courts just open up a door for guilty terrorists to be set free. Plus, what lawyers will fight against a terrorist? His family would also be killed.
QUOTE(Zordon)
No. The burdon of proof is on you for accusations that they are terrorists. He never ONCE SAID they were terrorists. He made claims that they should have trials to see if they are terrorists.
QUOTE(Cheeze)
You admit that some are not terrorists (In fact, most of them are not, if any).
Basically you should stop now and be more respectful, like Cheeze.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-02-19 at 20:53:40
QUOTE
I trust American courts with local hearings. I do not trust international courts becuase, like I said there is fear, our system without courts is working, the normal people, even if slowly, are getting released.
Their lives destroyed, they have no home. How is that better than death?
From what I'm hearing, I think you agree they should have trials but don't want to admit it.
I completely agree that terrorists should stay (provided there is proof they are terrorists). The problem is there are innocent people there; America does not have the right to disrupt a human's living by throwing them in there. That's why letting them stand trials will work.
You continue to say that those who argue against would be afraid and they would be killed. Well, Bush isn't dead yet; that's absolute proof that people we argue against terrorists and keep them where they belong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Arbitrary on 2006-02-19 at 20:53:44
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ Feb 19 2006, 08:38 PM)
The terrorist stay, the normal people we let out. This system is working.
[right][snapback]430886[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]430886[/snapback][/right]
Like Jose Padilla, right? The guy was held for three years without even knowing why he was being detained, and only recently had contact with a lawyer.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-02-20 at 01:11:24
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Feb 19 2006, 05:53 PM)
Their lives destroyed, they have no home. How is that better than death?
From what I'm hearing, I think you agree they should have trials but don't want to admit it.
I completely agree that terrorists should stay (provided there is proof they are terrorists). The problem is there are innocent people there; America does not have the right to disrupt a human's living by throwing them in there. That's why letting them stand trials will work.
You continue to say that those who argue against would be afraid and they would be killed. Well, Bush isn't dead yet; that's absolute proof that people we argue against terrorists and keep them where they belong.
[right][snapback]430895[/snapback][/right]
From what I'm hearing, I think you agree they should have trials but don't want to admit it.
I completely agree that terrorists should stay (provided there is proof they are terrorists). The problem is there are innocent people there; America does not have the right to disrupt a human's living by throwing them in there. That's why letting them stand trials will work.
You continue to say that those who argue against would be afraid and they would be killed. Well, Bush isn't dead yet; that's absolute proof that people we argue against terrorists and keep them where they belong.
[right][snapback]430895[/snapback][/right]
Your first statement sounds like you honor matrial possessions over body. Frankly, I would rather be alive and have all my possessions gone, then to be dead.
Life is never worst then death. Period.
No, I think they probably should have a trial, BUT its only another door for the terrorists to use. Bush has protection, ordinary people have little or none. do you really think the police will be able to protect you?
QUOTE(Arbitrary @ Feb 19 2006, 05:53 PM)
Like Jose Padilla, right? The guy was held for three years without even knowing why he was being detained, and only recently had contact with a lawyer.
[right][snapback]430896[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]430896[/snapback][/right]
There you go, hes on his way to a trial. Good for him!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-02-20 at 10:08:00
Three years and four years. You've wasted his life. Even if he was released, where would he go?
These people aren't accepted in their own countries and the US won't accept them. How is that better than death anyway?
You think life is always better than death? I find it ironic that since people always say heaven is so great and stuff. Why are you so afraid?
These people aren't accepted in their own countries and the US won't accept them. How is that better than death anyway?
You think life is always better than death? I find it ironic that since people always say heaven is so great and stuff. Why are you so afraid?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-02-20 at 10:09:18
But he still has more to live for, there for he should.
btw, in post 31, zordon did censor evasion.
Boo hoo
Before you try to apply American laws to terrorists, you should try to follow the current rules.
QUOTE
QUOTE(dumbducky)
btw, in post 31, zordon did censor evasion.
Boo hoo
Before you try to apply American laws to terrorists, you should try to follow the current rules.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-02-20 at 18:13:34
QUOTE
Life is never worst then death. Period.
Honestly, that opinion is crazy. I'd much rather die than spend the rest of life life in solitary confinement, never talking to another human being again. There are a great many things worse than death.
Restarting your life is a lot harder than you give credit for. You say you'd rather I locked you up in prison for four years, took all your possessions, and then let you go with the legacy of your detainment still following you around? How many businesses are going to hire someone that, to the average paranoid American, is a terrorist?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-02-20 at 18:52:07
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Feb 20 2006, 03:13 PM)
Honestly, that opinion is crazy. I'd much rather die than spend the rest of life life in solitary confinement, never talking to another human being again. There are a great many things worse than death.
Restarting your life is a lot harder than you give credit for. You say you'd rather I locked you up in prison for four years, took all your possessions, and then let you go with the legacy of your detainment still following you around? How many businesses are going to hire someone that, to the average paranoid American, is a terrorist?
[right][snapback]431547[/snapback][/right]
Restarting your life is a lot harder than you give credit for. You say you'd rather I locked you up in prison for four years, took all your possessions, and then let you go with the legacy of your detainment still following you around? How many businesses are going to hire someone that, to the average paranoid American, is a terrorist?
[right][snapback]431547[/snapback][/right]
Yes, I thought so, very ignorant.
And Cheeze, LOL, where did this afraid come into play? Thats not very responsible debating if you ask me. Assume too much.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2006-02-20 at 19:01:47
QUOTE(The_Daddy)
Yes, I thought so, very ignorant.
And Cheeze, LOL, where did this afraid come into play? Thats not very responsible debating if you ask me. Assume too much.
And Cheeze, LOL, where did this afraid come into play? Thats not very responsible debating if you ask me. Assume too much.
What he speaks, is truth. I have relatives that have just barely gotten out of prison, and they cannot find a job ANYWHERE. How is not being able to be broughten back into society to make a living, and get back on track with your life, not worse than death?
Just because you are upper middle class, or some shiz like that, you won't understand what we talk about because you're ignorant. You're just some prissy white rich boy.