I expected better considering the subject matter. 9/11 conspiracy nuts are SOOOO easy to ridicule. Except for the Dick Cheney crossbow scene, I didn't really laugh out loud.
Last night's episode
Oct 12, 2006, 3:45 PM ET43 posts by 13 posters
43 posts
I thought it had some great moments, but have to agree that the resolution was pretty weak. I was hoping it would wind up as a commentary on the loss of rights, including the suspension of habeus corpus, for anyone the President declares a terrorist. It would have been much better if the government had locked Kyle away just because Cartman claimed he was behind 9/11.
Vic
One political fantasy per episode. I think it's a rule Matt and Trey abide by.
vic arpeggio wrote:
Er, what law allows that now? (The National Defense Authorization Act only denies habeas corpus for "aliens outside of the United States being detained at Guantanamo Bay".
-- Don
"Don Del Grande" wrote in message news:[email]...
Please don't infringe on the kooks right to fear-mongering.
we wont just like we wont infringe on the Bush adminastration's right to fear-mongering.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:44:53 +1000, "seon ferguson" wrote:
heheh. It was Bush adminastration! Bush adminastration done it!
Come on Seon grow up dude. How old are you?
"Jimmuh" wrote in message news:[email]...
Oops my bad. 23 and I still watch South Park.
"seon ferguson" wrote in message news:45347d7c$0$24667$[email]...
I started watching at 35.
Yikes and I thought I was old.
Just for the record I think Bush is to stupid to pull of something as sophisticated as the terrorist attacks of 911 so I'll download it that's for sure.
"seon ferguson" wrote
I became hooked on South Park with the movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut" when it was broadcast on TV here. Since then I've collected all of the season DVDs.
I was born in 1945...
"Opinicus" wrote in message news:[email]...
I was a fan since the Pink eye episode. I own almost every episode.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:51:37 +1000, "seon ferguson" wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. I didn't start to grow up until I was about 26. Something will happen that proves to you that you don't know every d*mn thing, and then you'll start to see some sense. It's already starting to happen, I'm sure. Look out for the rest of it.
"Jimmuh" wrote in message news:[email]...
I never claimed I know every damn thing (I used to though) all I know is I don't like being lied to by our leaders.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:42:16 +1000, "seon ferguson" wrote:
Ha! It's a funny thing. In 3 or 4 years you'll shift up the date where "you used to". You have been lied to by our leaders Seon, just not the ones you think. It's a huge giant mega-monkey of a manipulation.
If you're talking about the left I agree. There's liars on both sides.
The voices in his head do not believe you.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:57:54 -0400, [email] (Chris �) wrote:
*Someone* has voices in his head, maybe talk radio hosts?
Here's a nice reality check, courtesy of Keith Olbermann; actually read the whole thing, or you might miss something! ; ) :
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/>
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/>
Reality check and Keith Olberman do not belong in the same sentance (unless it is someone doing a reality check on him).
Ask yourself why Olberman did not read anything from the law itself even though it is easy enough to find:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf
The reason is that him reading from it would throw a monkey wrench in his whole "Death of Habius Corpus" lie.
The launguage pertaining to Habius Corpus on this bill applies only to Aliens and does not affect American citizens in any way.
Congress can't �suspend� habeas corpus by taking it from aliens who have no right to it in the first place. The right against suspension of habeas corpus found in the Constitution (art. I, 9) belong only to American Citizens.
Even so, Alien Combatants still get to challenge thier detention according to the Detainee Treatment Act which requires a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. There, the combatant has the right to challenge, first at the CSRT, then if unsuccessful the U.S. Court of appeals, D.C. Circuit and finally he can go to the Supreme Court.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:02:48 GMT, Mike wrote:
He seems to be one of the few people still in touch with reality in this world . . .
Under definition of "Unlawful Enemy Combatant":
"A person who, before, on, or after the date of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense."
This means any tribunal hand-picked by the President, be it George Bush now or Hillary Clinton in the future, can declare you an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" if the so decide.
Oh, how you *wish* that were true!
Good luck proving that citizenship if you've been charged! That "only alien" provision won't work if it has no teeth . . .
BTW:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Hmmm, nothing specifying citizens there . . .
According to Leutenant Commander Charles Swift, appointed to represent Gitmo detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan wasn't even allowed access to him until he had *plead guilty* to charges; call it a hunch, but facing "justice" like that means future detainees may not be as lucky as Mr. Hamdan to reach the Supreme Court, especially when "law" and "experience" seem to be taking such different paths . . .
Are you kidding me? The constitution is for "We the People of the United States". Everything in the Constitution is for US Citizens only.
U.S. citizens and those aliens who, by lawfully weaving themselves into the fabric of our society have become citizens.
Aliens whose only connection to our country is to wage a barbaric war against it, do not, and should not, have any Constitutional rights.
Do you actually think our founding fathers put up with extending constitutional rights to non citizen terrorists.
No, they wouldn't.
"A person who, before, on, or after the date of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense."
But there is a criteria, specifications that have to be met, for the determining of enemy combatants and those include either non citizen or renouncement of citizenship through declaration or treasonous acts (Treason: Violation of allegiance toward one's country, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies).
And by the way, unscrupulous people in government do not need this law if they want to get you. Just ask the people of the Branch Dividian compound (only you can't, because they are dead).
" According to Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, appointed to represent Gitmo detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan wasn't even allowed access to him until he had *plead guilty* to charges"
So? Hamden was Osama Bin Laudin's personal driver and bodyguard. I think it's safe to assume that he had terrorism ties. Military Commissions function with the assumption of guilt in the first place.
But the thing is, if this were any other war, he would simply be held as a POW until the war ended. That would be the sane way to do things.
What is insane is allowing terrorists bent on destroying this country any access to rights and privileges of the country they are trying to destroy in the first place.
Why in the hell do we have to give terrorists rights that they themselves do not recognize and only use against us?
The people who have always carried themselves as the ally of women, gays and minorities now have this protective romance with the most gay-hating, women-hating and minority-hating force on the face of the earth. What gives?
Got to make sure they get American citizen rights although they aren't citizens and are trying to kill Americans.
Wasn't done before and should not be done now.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:55:45 GMT, Mike wrote:
'Cause that's what it explicitly sa- . . . oh wait, no it doesn't . . .
If you actually have them, and not some innocent caught in the "action" . . .
Well, I'm sure you got a seance to talk to them to back that up. Otherwise, putting words in the mouths of the dead is . . . well, dumb . . .
If they do that to us *without* that law, I can't begin to imagine what they'll do to us *with* that law!
Sorry, but this is a system based on a presumption of innocence. If something that is suppossedly part of our system runs counter to that, then there is something inherently wrong with it . . .
Funny, I'm yet to hear about Congress declaring war . . .
*If* they are terrorists. You seem to be assuming all the people involved are actually terrorists, and not just mistakes or outright fraud for the sake of a $5000 bounty. Considering over 200 have already been released, I'd say your assuming has been wrong, but that's what happens when you ass-u-me . . .
Besides the whole "that's what separates us from them" thing, see above . . .
Well, there was this long-haired philosopher from about 2000 years ago who went on about respecting, even loving your enemies, but you probably never heard of him . . . oh, and see further above . . .
There you go, ass-u-me-ing again . . .
Yes, abuse of power in emergencies is well-known "tradition," but history is something you're suppossed to learn from to *avoid* such mistakes!
On that I agree. They should declare war although this war is not with any one nation but a group of Islamist fascists.
But that's about it. What this all boils down to is that you are willing to give every benefit of the doubt (*If* they are terrorists) to people that in most cases are caught on the field attempting to kill Americans (not all the time, but that comprises the bulk) and no benefit of the doubt at all to the Government.
"Well, I'm sure you got a seance to talk to them to back that up. Otherwise, putting words in the mouths of the dead is . . . well, dumb . . ."
Not putting words in their mouths, just looking at how they conducted the Revolutionary War.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:18:40 GMT, Mike wrote:
The term you're looking for is "police action," and not like it was pathetically used with the Korean War. I have a major problem giving that scum the benefit of something as big as a war declared on them . . .
Yeah, getting permission from other countries, co-operating, gathering information, covert missions and surgical strikes, all boring, but it actually gets the job done . . .
Frankly kid, I'm amazed at how naive you are that you think you can give your government that much benefit of doubt, and not expect it to backfire on you. Is the concept of abuse of power really that foreign to you?! Getting a tax audit because you pissed off someone in high places is bad enough, now we have to deal with being declared "enemy combatants" . . .
Oooh, do give some specific examples! Do be careful what you say though, this is what my living's about . . .
If it got the job done Iraq would've never been a problem after the Gulf war.
No it is not, I had good view of it in the 90's. But I tell you, if all the Bush haters out there are so worried about being delcared "enemy combatants" they sure aren't acting like it.
As a matter of fact, I always found it's a strange definition of Fascism that tolerates so much utter and naked hostility towards the supposed Fascist without consequences.
I don't know about you personally, but I don't believe most of Bush's detractors really believe they will be dragged off the street and declared an "enemy combatant" because if they really believed it and if it was really happening it would shut them up and they are louder then ever.
It takes little to no courage to report on the flaws of decent societies. It only gives one a sense of self satisfaction and psuedo bravery.
They can conduct a "brave" protest march against the "evil" Bush (who is somehow usurping thier freedom even though they are obviously exercising it)...but clearly they don't dare protest real terror or terrorist acts the way that the Jordanians or the Lebanese did, for example.
If you truely believe this recent law will be used to drag people like you off the street. Please, relax a spell, and realize Bush cannot even detain real terrorists without catching tons of shit.
Ahh well, you got me. The fighters in the revolutionary war made absolutely sure that the British they were fighting were accorded the rights of a country the British refused to recognize.
And the British POW's were given Lawyers and ten chances to contest their imprisonment. It's all true!
So long Mr. Gonzalez and I leave you with this thought. You're life will continue basically uninterupted or impeded by Bush.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 04:30:48 GMT, Mike wrote:
Oooh boy, where to start . . .:
- It wasn't a problem, until we made it one again. - Yes, that actually *did* get the job done, hence the lack of WMD's, and a central government so weak it basically let Kurdistan for in the north. - This has . . . *what* to do with fighting terrorism?!
It's called "bravery"; doing something you know is right in the face of potential danger. Plainly, they actually *have* a pair!
Funny, I never used the word "Fascist" . . .
Sorry, but shutting up is for people who have *given* up . . .
See above . . . ; )
There's no need to protest what is so obviously evil; it's the subtle things people easily ignore you have to raise your voice about . . .
Catch "real terrorists," then there won't be a reason to catch tons of shit . . .
So, now you're *admitting* you were wrong?! If they granted British POW's such rights, the *damn right* they'd do the same for "enemy combatants"! Of couse, there was also gaining leverage for the treason trials in the event the Revolution failed, a big possibility when facing the full might of the British Empire, but that's another story . . .
Well, for now, but don't thing I'm gonna let naive little punks who don't have a fucking clue about reality let this country become something out of a certain Ray Bradbury novel, much less the George Orwell one . . .
Mike wrote:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:06:11 -0700, Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:
So sayeth the communists.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:10:43 +0100, Jimmuh wrote:
. . .
That . . . that's the best ya got?
. . .
Wow, how . . . pathetic . . .
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:19:29 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
Truth is simple.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:03:24 +0100, Jimmuh wrote:
Of course it is . . . now if you if you actually said any (unless you can prove it, of course) . . .
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:14:57 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
Of course my friend, I'll give you a metaphor to explain it.
It's like if Michael Jackson were to come up with that quote.
See, he'd start off with Child Molestors. It would go like:
<getchabeaton> They came first for the Child Molestors, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Child Molestors. <heehee> Then they came for the Pig f*ckers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Pig f*cker. <hooooo> Then they came for the Porn Freaks, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Porn Freak. <getchabeaton> Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. <heehee>
So you're supposed to go "sh*t man, I suppose I'd better look out for the child molestors, so then they will look out for me"
So when someone gives me the old "look out for the communists" routine, I remember "no, that's bollocks. the communists want nothing more than to enslave us under their sh*tty loser failure idealogy/religion, like they did to eastern europe and the chinese. f*ck them! I want to help the people who go after the communists because they are good people"
Peace.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:51:52 -0700, Jimmuh wrote:
I see, no proof, just pullin' it out of your ass . . .
Wow, you *completely* missed the point; the point, of course, "they" will come for *you* anyway . . .
Maybe you really believe you're one of "them"; when they eventually turn on you, they won't care what you believe . . .
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:58:09 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
Who are "they"? Do they ever tell you to do things?
OK, no joke. I'll tell you what I always tell people who've watched *way* too much TV - take up a hobby, start going outside regularly to places like parks - green places - walk somewhere every day, and cut down on TV. Slowly at first, because it will be hard. Try to move on to nature shows. If drugs are a part of your life, then you will have to change your friends, because they will keep you doing it.
Life can be a *lot* better than it is right now.
Peace.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:33:18 -0700, Jimmuh wrote:
Look kid, if you wanna believe Gitmo's run by hobbits or centaurs, that's your prerogative; some of us prefer to stick to the *real* world . . .
Heh, while I do go for regular walks, findin' a "green place" in a big city has a tendency to be a futile effort . . .
Slowly at first, because it will be hard. Try to move on
Sorry kid, but my body is my temple; shit only goes *out* of my body, I don't let any come in!
Damn right . . .
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:55:22 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
Yep, I assumed you were in a big city. There are always some parks or *something*. When all you see is grey and sh*t all day, you become futilistic. This is why the vast majority of the left lives in big cities - it's a nihilistic creed, & big city dwellers feel pretty darn nihilistic A LOT.
Dude - the world you know isn't the only world. Your surroundings and the media you surround yourself with are painting a false picture
That's cool.
(but it's supposed to be 'my body is a temple' - not 'my' temple...!)
Darn right is right friend . . .
Peace.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:42:32 GMT, Don Del Grande wrote:
Dude? You do *not* skimp on habeas corpus; BTW, thanks for admitting it is indeed being denied!
On 12 Oct 2006 14:31:01 -0700, "vic arpeggio" wrote:
OK, that's cool, you can think that.
But would you answer me this? Given that you are *not* retarded, and so don't think that the Government did 911, and so you therefore agree that we are in a war against well-funded crazies who don't care about there own lives in their craziness to kill us *all*,
OK, so given those things, what action would you take? Because, surely, unless you have a complete alternative, you're just pissing into the wind?
Here's some reasons why we have been very *restrained*:
In all previous wars of this scale, were there are a group of people who are particularly likely to be sympathetic to the enemy, they have been interred, or at least deported. This was a vital part of war strategy. This has not been done.
In all previous wars, if newspapers printed our tactics and plans, the editors would have been imprisoned, at best. This, again, is a vital part of strategy. This has not been done.
So if you bemoan what you call "the suspension of habeus corpus" [which is actually a legal document to seek release from *unlawful* imprisonment], surely it's important to note that does not mean that somebody's all-American grandma is going to be labelled a terrorist and imprisoned, because we have a media which would shout and scream until it was not so. So we really are talking about genuine threats to national security, not arbitrary decisions.
If you would answer "but it's a slippery slope", I would quote Thomas Jefferson, who was quoting Cesare Beccaria, "False it the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it"
(He was actually talking about gun-control laws, but it applies equally here)
Anyway, whatever. I just think too many people have these kind of 'soundbites' lodged away without really thinking "but what do *I* think about it".
(you're a towel)
Thanks for not automatically assuming I'm retarded just because we may disagree. Political discourse in this country could use more of that kind of attitude. As far as the detainee bill goes, I'm not a lawyer, but some prominent legal scholars have interpreted it to mean that the President can declare anyone--even a U.S. Citizen who's never left the country--an enemy combatatant and have them detained indefinitely and without explanation. There's also a precedent for such action--just ask all the Japanese-Americans who were interned during WWII.
I'm all for being tough on terrorists, but I'm also a Libertarian who lived through the Nixon years and don't want to see the President given excessive unilateral powers. There's a lot to be said for Constitutional checks and balances.
BTW, if you can prove that the detainee bill doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, I will admit I'm wrong and shut up about the whole thing. However, even if I am wrong, I still think it would have been a funny premise for this week's episode. You're a towel.
Vic
vic arpeggio wrote:
IANALBIALOOTI (I am not a lawyer but I act like one on the Internet) as well...
A quick reading of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (to read it, go to http://thomas.loc.gov, select "Bill Number", enter "S 3930", select "S.3930.ENR" on the next page, and then select "Printer Friendly Display" to see the whole thing on one web page) says (section 948c) that "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter" - and (section 948a) "alien" is defined as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States". (The same bill does define "unlawful enemy combatant" as "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense," and a strict reading does allow citizens to be declared "unlawful enemy combatants" (although not necessarily merely be declaration of the President), but the restrictions on rights (including (section 948b(d)) the denial of the right to a speedy trial and the right against self-incrimination(!)) applies only within a miliaty commission, which, as I have already shown, does not apply to US citizens.)
Besides - if you think about it, a bill that denies a citizen the rights defined under the Constitution is, pretty much by definition, unconstitutional (attempts to get around the Constitution have existed pretty much since the Supreme Court first convened - see McCulloch v. Maryland for what is probably the first example). (Also, Section 7 of the bill says that only requests by, or on behalf of, aliens for habeas corpus are not allowed.)
-- Don
On 13 Oct 2006 12:50:13 -0700, "vic arpeggio" wrote:
Of course you can have concerns about reductions in freedoms, dang it man, you MUST. Balance reason with more reason and somewhere we'll find the answer.
But what did Nixon actually *do*?
There was more song and dance than crime. It was a media hit job. There have been much worse abuses since then, not least by the previous occupant. Nixon just got caught. Don't think he was in some way worse, he seriously just got caught. Not that we shouldn't have perfect presidents in an ideal world; we should. But Nixon just got caught. It was terrible for democracy. We became a "mediaocracy" from that day.
"Libertarian" sounds great, but it's dominated by "the libertarian party" who are nerdishly purist in this idea, but it's not pure in, say, a scientific way. They have taken sides. eg. their purist idea for abortion is like "let anyone have abortions because that's the libertarian thing to do". But that totally misses the point of the debate, which hinges on the point that there is a second party concerned, who most consider to have equal 'liberties', and would argue that abortion is already banned by the murder statute. Being a "libertarian" doesn't mean you believe the "libertarian party" doctrine of course, but most people will think the two are the same. No other party has this "list of doctines" thing either; it's weird.
""Chris �"" wrote in message news:[email]...
REALLY?!?!?!
REEEEEEEEEALY??