(July 14, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm)cratehorus Wrote: What would happen if obama abolished the patriot act?

He'd screw the US anti-money laundering and client identity-theft protection. Sorry, I don't know what the legislation in that section of the Patriot Acts is actually called.

Why?

Shell, you have no proof to their guilt.

There has been no due process.

There are questions as to how many of them were taken.

The fact you're assuming they're guilty without due process is fascistic to say the least.

Just because the government says doesn't mean it is so.

(July 14, 2012 at 10:36 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Polaris Wrote: He'd screw the US anti-money laundering and client identity-theft protection. Sorry, I don't know what the legislation in that section of the Patriot Acts is actually called.

Why?

If you repeal a whole legislation piece such as the Patriot Acts, you remove the good along with the bad....I have a feeling the legislation was meant to keep criminals and possibly terrorists from stealing funds to further fund their crimes, but it is a real blessing to average citizens.

I am not sure if I am following this thread. I think (but do not know) that Shell B is not claiming to waive trials based on uncertainty of guilt; rather, she is pointing our that we will realistically bring some of the world's most potentially dangerous anti-US terrorists around our own citizens here on US soil if we try all of the suspects here. Doesn't her point revolve around the idea of separating them from Americans more than saying we should revoke their rights on mere suspicion? Am I confused or is this right?

(July 14, 2012 at 10:41 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 10:36 pm)cratehorus Wrote: Why?

If you repeal a whole legislation piece such as the Patriot Acts, you remove the good along with the bad....I have a feeling the legislation was meant to keep criminals and possibly terrorists from stealing funds to further fund their crimes, but it is a real blessing to average citizens.

SO guantanomo is really here to protect us?

(July 14, 2012 at 11:00 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 10:41 pm)Polaris Wrote: If you repeal a whole legislation piece such as the Patriot Acts, you remove the good along with the bad....I have a feeling the legislation was meant to keep criminals and possibly terrorists from stealing funds to further fund their crimes, but it is a real blessing to average citizens.

SO guantanomo is really here to protect us?

Sections of the Patriot Acts.

(July 14, 2012 at 11:01 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 11:00 pm)cratehorus Wrote: SO guantanomo is really here to protect us?

Sections of the Patriot Acts.

What?

(July 14, 2012 at 10:37 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Shell, you have no proof to their guilt.

There has been no due process.

There are questions as to how many of them were taken.

The fact you're assuming they're guilty without due process is fascistic to say the least.

Just because the government says doesn't mean it is so.

Oh, Syn. You know me better than that. I didn't say they were guilty or that I have proof of their guilt. I said it is likely that at least some are guilty (no presumption) and that due process must be had. I also pointed out that some have been tried and found guilty. I didn't point out earlier, but I will now, some have also been let go.

Don't call me a fascist or talk to me like I'm an idiot, Syn, please. I don't just believe the government or believe them guilty without due process. My entire argument has been that you can't just close a prison. You have to do something with the prisoners. Given that some of them may be guilty, they need to be tried so the prison can close. Anyone have an argument with that?

(July 14, 2012 at 11:08 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 11:01 pm)Polaris Wrote: Sections of the Patriot Acts.

What?

http://library.findlaw.com/2002/Jun/24/128259.html

(July 14, 2012 at 11:09 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 10:37 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

---

Shell, you have no proof to their guilt.

There has been no due process.

There are questions as to how many of them were taken.

The fact you're assuming they're guilty without due process is fascistic to say the least.

Just because the government says doesn't mean it is so.

---

Oh, Syn. You know me better than that. I didn't say they were guilty or that I have proof of their guilt. I said it is likely that at least some are guilty (no presumption) and that due process must be had. I also pointed out that some have been tried and found guilty. I didn't point out earlier, but I will now, some have also been let go.

Don't call me a fascist or talk to me like I'm an idiot, Syn, please. I don't just believe the government or believe them guilty without due process. My entire argument has been that you can't just close a prison. You have to do something with the prisoners. Given that some of them may be guilty, they need to be tried so the prison can close. Anyone have an argument with that?

I have a problem with that. The problem is that you're basically lying through your teeth. Below is what you wrote.

(July 14, 2012 at 7:11 pm)Shell B Wrote: Polaris, if Obama moved prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the continental United States, he's essentially bringing terrorists into U.S. prisons. Yes, some of them are not terrorists, but many of them are guilty. A lot of Americans have a problem with that.