<p>Impeaching the President (who only has less than 2 years left...) should be the last of our concerns... we have many more important things to do than going through the entirely pointeless impeachment process/hearings, etc. </p>
<p>Move on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You people need to remember, we are at war. We are at war in Iraq and at war in Afghanistan (which many people seem to overlook). If we pick up people on the front lines, they are prisoners of war. I'm not familiar with the Geneva Convention, so I can't say what we can and cannot do to them, but they are stripped of some rights we have as American citizens.
[/quote]
Then what makes us different from Nazis? Yay, concentration camps?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It means we dont have 100% free speech, but pretty close to it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bush and his Patriot-actish, tyrannical agenda is treason of principles founding fathers were putting into this country.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We are taking people who are shooting at us and imprisoning them during a war. Hitler took innocent people based on their race/religion/disabilities and killed them. Don't compare Bush to Hitler because it detracts from how horrible Hitler was.</p></li>
<li><p>The clear and present danger that limits our free speech was made during WWI (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger)%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger)</a>, so arresting people who say "Death to America" on planes is perfectly legal to keep the other hundreds of passengers safe. If you disagree, talk to the Supreme Court (which is meant to uphold the Constitution).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I never said I disagreed with punishing those people. I said it's wrong to not let them have a fair trial like other people.</p>
<p>"We are taking people who are shooting at us and imprisoning them during a war"</p>
<p>If we have proof, then why not take them to trial? Oh yeah, that's right. There are plenty of innocent people there and we wouldn't want the public to think we're getting rid of the patriot act.</p>
<p>"Yeah, these individuals were playing golf in their backyard and CIA kidnapped them just for fun."</p>
<p>Uh, yep, basically. :)</p>
<p>No, really, hundreds of men and women have been detained in CIA prisons without any explanation. Tortured endlessly, until they are forced to admit false things. Many have been proven and are being proven innocent. Still, they are offered no compensation for being torn from their jobs and families. Do you ever pick up a newspaper?</p>
<p>The thing is, whether "terrorist" or not, they deserve a fair trial. Yes, even Saddam Hussein and Hitler. That's a cornerstone of the American constitution. It is not a value judgement, but a protection for all Americans. Like MLK said, a threat to liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere. Not to mention, how can we be attacking other nations over human rights abuses when we fail so miserably at it here? How can we be expected to create a democratic Constitution in Iraq when we clearly can't follow the one we have here? The irony of it all!</p>
<p>Venkat- Bush can and has been compared to many past tyrants, including Saddam Hussein. How is it not terrorism what we are doing in Iraq? That's worse than Al Qaeda!</p>
<p>Doesn't anybody remember that guy who came from Canada to the US and was sent to Syria for torture all because his name was similar to a terrorist's name?</p>
<p>^ thank you! really, there are some serious problems in the current government. But it's OK, right? Because this is America and we have a democracy! woo hoo!</p>
<p>YES, impeach Bush.
Thanks so much for leading us into a useless war.</p>
<p>We all remember the Abu-Ghuraib prison ==> gravest crime of the century.
Worse is that Rumsfeld knew about it the whole time, yet he was static and didn't do a single thing.</p>
<p>no we do not, as Abu-Ghuraib prison doesn't exist. 'Gravest Crime of the Century' ????
1. Darfur !
2. The US or any other country not acting out on Darfur
3. 9/11 !!!
Probobly countless other actions.. did i leave anything else out ? feel free to fill in more.</p>
<p>Think before you speak.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you don't appreciate the values of a democracy then get out of here/don't come here and go to/stay at whatever monarchical nation you want. Try to get a great education there.</p>
<p>Hey abhi, here's a quick US history question:</p>
<p>What of the following values are this country not based on?</p>
<p>a. life
b. liberty
c. pursuit of happiness
d. justice
e. holding people with no evidence with no court trial set.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what about Rosa Park? An African American could be arrested if he/she refused to give up his seat to a white. Only Caucasians were allowed to legally immigrate to US, later when it was proved that Indians are also Caucasian, Supreme court Used the "understanding of the common man" argument(lol). And you want to say that this country was based on liberty and pursuit of happiness, Justice.
Keep in mind that US has just 40 years of Democracy under it's belt. India is Democracy(as messy and as chaotic as any other) and not a monarchy, the only flourishing one in outside west.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I am not comfortable living in an Islamic Tyranny. You may be, but I am not.
[Never mind, this was clearly not the focus of debate.]</p>
<p>
[quote]
Assuming you're dark-skinned, go to an airport yelling "I hate America!!!". Congratulations on successfully figuring out how to be sent to Cuba for the rest of your life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And which person with a right mind would like to do that? Obviously if you are shining an AK-47 in Iraq you deserve to be in Cuba.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If we have proof, then why not take them to trial? Oh yeah, that's right. There are plenty of innocent people there and we wouldn't want the public to think we're getting rid of the patriot act.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because, most of the times there aren't enough proofs against them. Should all the people in Guantamo be let free for bombing another WTC? And Bush/CIA have no personal bias with the detainees. </p>
<p>Are you more knowledgeable than CIA in such cases? At least trust your own people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because, most of the times there aren't enough proofs against them. Should all the people in Guantamo be let free for bombing another WTC? And Bush/CIA have no personal bias with the detainees.
[/quote]
Oh really? Well, maybe we should imprison everyone because even though we don't have enough evidence for their arrest, who knows what they will do?
What happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine? Where are we going, to the inquisition?
[quote]
Are you more knowledgeable than CIA in such cases? At least trust your own people.
[/quote]
You should not trust your own people. CIA should be checked constantly and reorganized by will of people if it does not satisfy their needs.
We employ CIA (we pay their salaries) and we have all reasons to distrust and check them.</p>
<p>Abhi, I'm beginning to think that you have some personal animosity towards Muslims in general.</p>
<p>Also I find it hard to believe anything that comes out of someone who cites someone as being "stupid" on the basis for what they believe and that you don't. You loose your credibility so if I were you I would avoid such pre-mature comments</p>
<p>
[quote]
You should not trust your own people. CIA should be checked constantly and reorganized by will of people if it does not satisfy their needs. We employ CIA (we pay their salaries) and we have all reasons to distrust and check them.
[/quote]
Perfectly fine. That's what's called democracy, but is a silly thread to impeach bush the way it should be done? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh really? Well, maybe we should imprison everyone because even though we don't have enough evidence for their arrest, who knows what they will do?
What happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine? Where are we going, to the inquisition?
[/quote]
You are talking about those people as if they were picked up by the CIA as 'lads,' 'our lads,' as though they were people playing cricket or marbles.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are talking about those people as if they were picked up by the CIA as 'lads,' 'our lads,' as though they were people playing cricket or marbles.
[/quote]
RTFM. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial</a>
Holding person for indefinite amount of time without no reasonable proof of guilt is not right. </p>
<p>It is a very serious matter and should not be resolved by a couple of guys from CIA who we don't even know.</p>
<p>After multiple scandals involving breach of trust and lies, I find it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to trust anyone in that administration, let alone the CIA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Abhi, I'm beginning to think that you have some personal animosity towards Muslims in general.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nup. I have animosity with Muslim states(Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia) which have no concept of human rights/women rights/rights of minorities.
[quote]
Also I find it hard to believe anything that comes out of someone who cites someone as being "stupid" on the basis for what they believe and that you don't. You loose your credibility so if I were you I would avoid such pre-mature comments
[/quote]
I would please request everyone to refrain from personal comments. It only shows that you have no valid point to argue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
RTFM. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial</a>
Holding person for indefinite amount of time without no reasonable proof of guilt is not right.</p>
<p>It is a very serious matter and should not be resolved by a couple of guys from CIA who we don't even know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does CIA has any personal bias with the detainees?</p>
<p>Shouldn't you have animosity towards countries that rape their own woman and force them into arranged marriages and intercourse without their consent? Are you not concerned with child labor laws, where 9yr. old Kerpal works day and night in a sweatshop factory, making little or no money and taken captive by the authority of his boss - and you're talking about human rights??? Are you not concerned that Aids is a growing epidemic in the country of India and that the govt. of India is doing little to help provide medical assistance to the people who need it most? From what I recall, India has not treated it's female majority with outright respect either.</p>
<p>Yeah, what about the sati?</p>
<p>What about the caste system in India, isn't that a form of discrimination?</p>
<p>Broken People: Caste Violence Against India’s “Untouchables”
Some 160 million people in India live a precarious existence, shunned by much of society because of their rank as "untouchables" or Dalits—literally meaning "broken" people—at the bottom of India's caste system. Dalits are discriminated against, denied access to land, forced to work in degrading conditions, and routinely abused, even killed, at the hands of the police and of higher-caste groups that enjoy the state's protection. Dalit women are frequent victims of sexual abuse. In what has been called India's "hidden apartheid," entire villages in many Indian states remain completely segregated by caste. National legislation and constitutional protections serve only to mask the social realities of discrimination and violence. Caste clashes, particularly in the states of Bihar and Tamil Nadu, but also in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Gujarat, reflect patterns which are common to many parts of the country: a loss of faith in the state machinery and increasing intolerance of their abusive treatment have led many Dalit communities into movements to claim their rights. In response, state and private actors have engaged in a pattern of repression to preserve the status quo. The report also documents the government's attempts to criminalize peaceful social activism through the arbitrary arrest and detention of Dalit activists, and its failure to abolish exploitative labor practices and implement relevant legislation.
<a href="http://hrw.org/doc/?t=women_pub&document_limit=80,20%5B/url%5D">http://hrw.org/doc/?t=women_pub&document_limit=80,20</a>
March 1, 1999 Report</p>