Tale

So, let's get this straight. There were U.S citizens detained in Guantanamo. But because they're classified as POWs, they don't get habeas corpus. Is that what you're supporting? How is he correct?

Madness. My apartment was cheap and perfect!

The discussion about habeas corpus had towards Guantanamo was never implied to be related to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court extended to them that right. Congress turned around and passed a law that stripped federal courts of the authority to hear it. The Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to speak to them, presumably in regards to this, where he said to them that "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas.'' If anything, bringing up Guantanamo is the mostly irrelevant point as the controversy most explicitly comes from that the man was speaking of citizens of the United States. not taks

I had and still have a Dreamcast. Didn't have it at college my second year (storage). But, interestingly I've heard a much worse story about an original Xbox. An apartment caught fire, the firemen came and doused the place in water. They dried it out, worked fine.

A conundrum that seeks resolution, not exploitation. Simply because one's classification is in limbo does not mean they are without rights. The Constitution and Geneva Convention should be looked at as precedents for the rights of people in general, not something to be avoided when possible and convenient. Now, I'm not to say Gonzales was in support of depriving human rights when convenient, well actually I did pretty much say that earlier. However, after looking into the contexts a little more, I've only moved back to suspicious. I find this a most interesting excerpt: Gonzales: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. As he speaks explicitly of citizens. Was his comment merely one of being an academic argument over the wording or was he actually trying to make an argument for a point?

I have difficulty understanding the claim that the FBI is behaving for votes.

Why are you speaking as if someone thinks it applies to wiretapping? Did I bring up wiretapping? It was brought up in Senate in regards to Guantanamo detainees, not wiretapping.

1) Ounce of prevention, etc... 2) The US government can't publicly accuse people on mere suspicion. (maybe they can, but it's immensely poor taste) These people either a) are suspected of plotting such attacks or b) suspected to hold information about such potential attacks. Which translates directly into what is being said. Several innocent people are dead because of actions taken based on "an ounce of prevention" license. Others have had their careers or personal lives damaged. The FBI have effectively accused the people in the picture by posting their picture and providing a generalized accusation. But considering the recent record of civil rights abuse by the FBI and other government organs they should provide something more concrete. Comments about actions or even a name would be nice. Unfortunately the FBI and Homeland Security have a very bad record of accuracy with such generalized suspicians. Some officials seek publicity and favor by affecting a pose of savvy vigilence through repeated accusations - politics. They benefit even if the accusations are false. I will say this, Taks; considering your field of study it is good for your career to take the attitude you project! -Not Taks

Hangovers are for pansies. I drink jack and coke, no hangovers. A few weeks ago I down 11 beers in a couple hours, no hangover. But, I have my own problems the following day.

I would have caught it if I read through the whole thread.

Wait, so he argued the the convention was obselete in addition to trying to argue that there is no promise of habeas corpus? Good riddance, should have happened sooner.

I would glare menacingly at him.

1) Ounce of prevention, etc... 2) The US government can't publicly accuse people on mere suspicion. (maybe they can, but it's immensely poor taste) These people either a) are suspected of plotting such attacks or b) suspected to hold information about such potential attacks. Which translates directly into what is being said.

I only found out about it as I was moving out. Never saw him again.

No, I had an underage drunk roommate. 18 years old and the guy comes to the dorm room drunk several times a week. He was probably playing my PS2 when I wasn't around (which was fine by me) as I saw an occasional PS2 game lying on his stuff. But then one day I find a giant dent on the corner of the system and the system doesn't work anymore, **** sux.

Here's what I posted on another forum in regards to an Alien 5 movie: I'm not married to point 6, but I think that's really where the series should have headed from the beginning. Escalation of threats. Ship -> Colony -> Fully-colonized planet (Earth)

I'm lucky, I barely had to deal with roommates. The first year there I had two roommates, who ended up moving to other rooms but didn't fill out their paperwork right, so aside from two weeks of that year I had the room all to myself. Second semester of second year was different and taught me why I'm never going to have livingmates again. Break my PS2, will you? I should have #@%@#%@# that #%$@#%@

Here's to hoping you don't get a ****ty roomate who breaks your PS2.

I'm with you, Mus. Not Fincher's finest work, but I liked it. Probably more than Resurrection and only because of Ryder's presence in the latter.

I doubt In the beginning though Also Considering the tricks he was playing could have done it himself and blamed it on He never would have had to come clean.

You're never too young to go senile. I'm living proof.

I doubt