pertains to "can't do anything that insults a person's integrity" or something like it.
Really.
These terrorists (Okay, I won't even say ALL muslims, because we don't capture ALL muslims do we? unless we have enough prisons to capture 1.5 billion people..anyway)
These terrorists will KILL YOU if you have a CARTOON about them, or if you say 'insensitive statements' that are quoted by a guy 900 years dead.
Wow. personal integrity? if you even look at them you're probably insulting them in some inferior-infidel way.
time to realize these terrorists are not human, they're animals.
2006-09-28 07:36:41 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
OK, good point first responder
2006-09-28 07:39:25 · update #1
to clarify for the person down there..I was trying to be politically correct by not assuming all muslims were terrorists (but all terrorists are muslims)..
and the guy 900 years dead (or so) is the 14th century byzantine emperor the Pope quoted that caused muslims to go burn churches and kill a nun.
2006-09-28 07:48:18 · update #2
Okay, not ALL terrorists are muslims..I'll give you that. Majority are.
2006-09-28 07:55:25 · update #3
The President's bill was held up in the Senate because Republicans challenged its harshness and its constitutionality. Even now Spector doesn't think the provisions eliminating habeus corpus will withstand court scrutiny. Prisoners have had the right to challenge their detention via writ of habeus corpus since 1215 AD. The new bill will also allow detention of American citizens accused of terrorist acts or of aiding terrorists acts. The President can define what is a terrorist act, and what is aiding a terrorist.
You really have no idea what these changes in the law imply and can lead to.
2006-09-28 07:40:15 · answer #1 · answered by TxSup 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Last I recall, McVeigh wasn't a muslim. Neither was the Grand Dragon, the guy who taught you this crap. As for the terrorists, when he starts going after them (Osama's men, in Afghanistan, or Kony's Janjaweed in Sudan), then ask the question again and watch the responses change, including mine.
2006-09-28 08:20:29 · answer #2 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Okay, I won't even say ALL Muslims, because we don't capture ALL Muslims do we? unless we have enough prisons to capture 1.5 billion people..anyway....What?
And you mean there were two Mohammed's? Crap we're in trouble now. The first one died about 1400 years ago.
But I do agree with you on one point, these terrorist's are more like animals than humans.
Go on, tell me I'm a libby cry baby.
Bring it on!!
2006-09-28 07:45:48 · answer #3 · answered by Samuel Crow 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If we want to be a decent people...if we want to be guided by something higher than self-preservation...if we want to be the leader of the world because of our moral rather than our military strength...then we will treat our enemy, no matter how foul or barbaric, better than he would treat us.
Its our choice, we can sink to their level or rise above.
Oh and pink, not all terrorist are muslims either. Ever heard of a little place called Northern Ireland? How about the Basques in Spain? Look them up if you truly don't know.
And Stifle, you dirty dog, you always make me laugh!
2006-09-28 07:47:24 · answer #4 · answered by Skippy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To be honest, i have no idea, because it only applies to countries that are in their opinion "civilized"
How many of the Vietnamese prosecuted? How many terrorists have been prosecuted? If there are any, you can count the number on one hand
2006-09-28 07:42:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
in all fairness to the democrats, if you do not have a standard operating procedure you open yourself up, not to terrorist but to other countries in the future of wars. i am sure that republicans were not trying to change the language but confirm the definitions of the convention. it gives the interrogators a "baseline" if you will on proper treatment not just for radicals but for our troops abroad.NOTE; THESE CONVENTIONS ONLY APPLY TO THOSE IN UNIFORM WHO HAVE A COUNTRY STANDARD AND ADHERE TO THE RULE OF WAR. YES, THERE ARE RULES.
2006-09-28 07:56:58 · answer #6 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since 1949, all of the world's leaders understood this document. Why, in 2006, has it all of a sudden become vague? I feel that the rules are trying to be changed because we have already tortured and broken them.
2006-09-28 08:43:56 · answer #7 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Should we be like them or above them if you want to do terrorist like things then declare yourself a terrorist. Don't blast democrats for trying to be better than you.
2006-09-28 07:41:14 · answer #8 · answered by region50 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that "insulting a person's integrity" is much too broad a phrase because some people and groups are much too sensitive.
2006-09-28 07:41:40 · answer #9 · answered by Sean 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Could you put that up on Youtube??
I would love to see it. I can only imagine the Keystone Cops.
2006-09-28 07:41:25 · answer #10 · answered by Skull&Bones 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋