Compromise reached
By on Nov 15th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Compromise reached
on habeas suspension. The new measure “authored by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.)…would grant detainees the right to appeal the verdict of a military tribunal to a federal appeals court. The deal will come to a vote today, and the authors say they are confident it will pass.” (Via Kevin Drum)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Carl Levin is a patriot and hero.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:20 amAnother big blunder by the Republicans. Can you say Magna Carta?????
November 15th, 2005 at 9:24 amI can’t for the life of me understand the Republican argument that people they pick up “on the battlefield” do not even deserve a hearing to determine if they were legally detained. What is their rationale for this position? What’s next, summary executions?
The Republicans need to understand that might does not make right; that being rich doesn’t make you “better” than anyone else; and that you can’t claim the morally high ground of you’re going to go around acting immorally thoughout the world.
What is wrong with these people? Did someone take away their toys when they were kids? Are they just taking revenge on everyone who they perceived wronged them at some point in their lives? Do they honestly believe that they are acting for the greater good?
Or are they just assholes?
November 15th, 2005 at 9:31 am#3
Out of curiuosity I went to Sen. Graham’s Web site to see why he wanted to get this amendment passed. In a nutshell, since the detainees we are holding as part of the War on Terror are not U.S. citizens, he does not think they should have access to the U.S. court system.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:36 amOK…so I mispelled curiosity. Sorry.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:37 amYou missed a good debate on The News Hour lastnight, Wayne. The position of the Neocons is that the detainees, before all else, are an immediate danger to the USA. And as a consequence they lose their rights. This position was argued by JOHN WOO. His arguement did not hold ground with the attorney debating him who testified that there innocent people in prisons.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:40 amBut the Geneva Conventions do guarantee every person picked up on a battlefield at least some opportunity to get a hearing, at the very least, to determine what their actual status is. I admit that I have never had formal legal training, but even I can figure out that Attorneys General Ashcroft and Gonzalez were completely wrong to think differently.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:41 am#6 And the danger to all of us is (pay close attention Neocons and right-wing supporters): Who decides who is “an immediate danger”? On who’s word does someone lose all rights to a day in court? And who is held accountable when it turns out that the person doing the deciding was wrong? And, most importantly, what if the next person picked up this way is you? Are you still going to feel that you deserve no chance to clear your name?
I have to conclude that the Republican Party leadership (I won’t blame all party members) does not believe in freedom, justice, or the American way of life. Their own actions prove that.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:44 amhttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/airdates.html#
Pardon me, John Yoo.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:46 amCarl Levin is an idiot. I hope these one of these terrorists gets out and comes to America to kill as many liberals as possible. Serves them right. The fricking left has totally forgotten what happened on 9/11 and needs another dose of reality. The only problem with this is that they kill conservatives as well. They are unbiases in their hatred for America.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:54 amRemember, on our side we’re fighting for the innocent lives which are over there. We are not trying to aid the terrorists, or set them free, or give them special treatment. There are a lot of men taken to these prisons who have done NOTHIGN wrong, yet they are not allowed contact with the outside world – no lawyer, no contact with family. And they are there for months, even years. We want to make sure the innocent men are proven innocent. And we want to follow the rules of war where we DON’T mistreat the prisoners. Even if they ARE really a bad guy, we must always follow the rules or else we become as bad as them in our own way.
I know it’s difficult to immagine treating a bad guy fairly, but if you don’t, you’re breaking the rules and becoming a bad guy yourself and making it that much harder on you ad your fellow soliders and your country.
We’re not anti-American for wanting things to be fair for everyone in the prisons.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:54 amRyan… none of the terrorits we’re talking about are ther terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Those specific attackers died in the airplanes when they crashed into the towers.
But those attackers came from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. There hasn’t been an attack on American soil from Iraqis.. and it’s NOT because Bush is fighting them over there. We never had an attack from an Iraqi BEFORE we went over there, and that is why we still haven’t had an attack from them over here.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:58 amNeocons will never get over the idea of “helping a bad guy”, so the only argument that works is this: If an American soldier is picked up by a hostile force and put through secret trial with no access to evidence or appeals, then executed as an “enemy combatant,” the US will no NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT. Once you claim something like that for yourself, others will claim it, too.
And the counter-argument that the “bad guys” already do this kind of thing proves my point, not theirs – if what they do is “bad,” why confer on it any legitimacy by doing the same thing?
November 15th, 2005 at 10:01 amI’m glad they arrived at a compromise of sorts. I’d still prefer the prisoners were treated as POW’s, just for the sake of moral clarity, if for no other reason.
But this is better than what the Reichtwingnuts wanted.
Goosestepping bastards. We didn’t fight Germany in WWII to have them transpose themselves into “ze true american patriots” here.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:01 amThat’s not the Ryan we know. Some other complete idiot is using his screen-name.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:05 amCould this be Bush’s first veto?
November 15th, 2005 at 10:07 am#10 (and I know it’s not Ryan)
“They are unbiases (sic) in their hatred for America.”
Speaking of the Republican Party there?
November 15th, 2005 at 10:09 amI thought TP was going to censor poster who assume other posters handles/names. Post #10 is shameful.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:12 am“Alito is against race based preferences like affirmative action – like most of America is. That is a good thing.â€
“Bush can appoint Condi to VP and try to “heal†the country. The first female and black VP – major achievementâ€
“he will pack the Court with judges that think like me!”
“Had he not tried to exploit his wife’s position to attack the Admin, she would have never been outed.â€
-Northeast Dilemma
November 15th, 2005 at 10:14 amI,m changing my screenname to just plain old (.)
November 15th, 2005 at 10:20 ameveryone should change thier name to just plain old (.) that way , the posters cannot use your screen name.
It would appear that TP has about as much power to stop me as the democratic party has winning elections.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:25 amWow…you folks are living in some sort of patchouli-scented fool’s paradise where everybody gets the same access to the American courts that citizens have and only the innocent are swept up by the evil hegemon America.
“There are a lot of men taken to these prisons who have done NOTHIGN (sic) wrong…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html
How do you know? Because that’s what they claim?
Don’t be such a wet-behind-the-ears naif.
“The commander of a tribal militant group, Abdullah Mehsud, 29, told reporters by satellite phone that his followers were responsible for the abductions.
Mehsud said he spent two years at Guantanamo Bay after being captured in 2002 in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban. At the time he was carrying a false Afghan identity card, and while in custody he maintained the fiction that he was an innocent Afghan tribesman, he said. U.S. officials never realized he was a Pakistani with deep ties to militants in both countries, he added. ”
News Flash, kiddies: Muslims LIE.
http://islam-usa.com/r32.html
November 15th, 2005 at 10:28 amTerrorists do not just flout the laws of war. They turn them into an offensive weapon. When they are not killing civilians, they are hiding among them. When they are not blowing up civilian infrastructure — whether hotels, office buildings, or houses of worship — they are using them as weapons depots, meeting halls, and war rooms.
American soldiers are sitting ducks in an urban guerrilla war. They follow the laws of war. They wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly. Thus the terrorist enemy knows exactly whom to kill. And he kills in stealth. These enemies are not the Nazis. They are not coming at our guys donned in military array, or in tanks festooned with swastikas. They look exactly like the people our troops are trying to protect. They murder by sneaking up close. They murder by improvised explosive devices hidden in soda cans, or bushes, or cars, or on the booby-trapped bodies of the dead.
We don’t know who they are or from which way they come. This is not a traditional foe. We can’t conquer his territory. He doesn’t have one. He’s a nomad who trains in secret then sets up shop among innocents only long enough to kill. We can only desperately seek him out. We can only hope to kill or capture him before he uses the honor of true soldiers against them — before he converts to his advantage their moment’s hesitation, borne of dedication to a code that war is to be fought between warriors, not by opening fire on non-combatants.
Superior force and discipline are not enough against this adversary. We need intelligence. Intelligence is the single asset that stands between the terrorist and scores — if not more — of slaughtered civilians. Between the terrorist and murdered American military personnel. In the war on terror, as in no war before it, intelligence will be the difference between victory and defeat. And if Senator John McCain has his way, the most urgently needed intelligence will be lost.
McCain has attached an amendment to next year’s defense appropriations bill. It is two parts grandstanding and one part suicide — so, naturally, it has commanded a one-sided (90-9) majority of our grandstanding, suicidal United States Senate, including, dismayingly, over 80 percent of the Republican caucus.
The grandstanding elements are plain enough. First, the whole exercise is a melodramatic condemnation of torture — capitalizing on the Abu Ghraib scandal and isolated instances of prisoner abuse which, while deplorable, are not only infrequent by historical standards but compare favorably to the civilian detention system.
None of it is necessary. Torture is already against the law. It is, moreover, the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain — which is to say, much of the prisoner abuse that has prompted the current controversy has not been torture at all. Unpleasant? Yes. Sometimes sadistic and inexplicable? Undoubtedly. But not torture. And where it has been either torture or unjustifiable cruelty, it is being investigated, prosecuted, and severely punished.
Second, the McCain Amendment affects a high-minded prohibition against “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” This, too, is a meaningless gesture — except to the extent it will be perceived by McCain’s breathless following in the mainstream media as a political slapdown of the president, the secretary of Defense, and the military brass.
That’s because the provision does not change existing law a wit. In 1994, the United States ratified the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (UNCAT).
But wait a minute, you say. Haven’t commentators (like yours truly) noted that the Senate approved the treaty with a heavy caveat? Indeed it did. The Senate provided that the treaty was limited by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Although those amendments call for due process and bar both coerced confessions and cruel and unusual punishments, they have largely been limited to judicial proceedings involving criminal defendants. Thus, they are essentially irrelevant to wartime detentions of alien enemy combatants.
So does the McCain Amendment change that? No. It contains exactly the same reservation. In fact, it expressly reiterates the UNCAT caveat and explicitly cites to it, lest there be any confusion. On this, again, it is all show and no substance.
So what’s different? That question brings us to the suicide part. McCain wants to turn every enemy combatant into an honorable prisoner of war — at least to the extent that such prisoners are protected under the Geneva Conventions against any type of coercive interrogation.
The McCain Amendment provides that no prisoner held by the Defense Department “shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.” That manual expressly forbids any use of force, coercion or intimidation in conducting questioning, even if such tactics fall short of torture, even if the prisoner is a terrorist guilty of war crimes, and even in a matter of life-and-death — perhaps thousands of deaths.
Obviously, in the vast majority of circumstances, this provision of the McCain Amendment is also gratuitous moralizing. In general, though we are at war with terrorists against whom intelligence is our only defense, the military does not resort to forcible methods. To the contrary, gushing respect is our customary response to savagery, complete with halal meals, prayer rugs, and literally white-glove treatment for government-issued Korans (even if the prisoners proceed to use them for stuffing toilets and passing secret messages).
But there are certain circumstances in which high-level al Qaeda operatives are captured in the throes of plotting massive strikes. There are certain circumstances in which such a terrorist might be able to tell us, right now, where bin Laden is, or Zarqawi, Zawahiri, and other leaders who are themselves weapons of mass destruction because they have the wherewithal to command massive strikes.
Understand: If we were to learn where one of those men was, we would attack that target and kill him, and we’d make no apologies for it. By the McCain logic, the killing is fine but the infliction on a terrorist of non-lethal discomfort to obtain the intelligence necessary to do the killing should subject the inflictor to prosecution. That’s absurd.
This is not a recommendation that we license torture — although that is a debate adults ought to be able to have without the hysteria and hyperbole that now comes with the territory. This is, instead, a humble appreciation of our limitations. We live in a world of deranged murderers, highly imperfect intelligence, and weapons capable of unimaginable carnage. We are only human beings. We do not have the foresight to predict every peril — in fact, our track record in such prognostication is, at best, checkered. We can certainly hope that we’ll never need to use coercive interrogation methods. But we cannot responsibly remove them as an option and claim to be protecting the nation.
We should be asking this question of each and every member of Congress who claims to support the McCain Amendment: If we had credible information regarding an ongoing al Qaeda plot to detonate a nuclear weapon in the continental United States, and we had just taken into custody an al Qaeda militant who was in a position to know where and when the attack was to occur but who was refusing to cooperate, are you saying we would need to let thousands of Americans die rather than harm a hair on the terrorist’s head in an effort to extract the information that might save them?
If the answer to that question is “no,” you have no business voting for the McCain Amendment. If the answer is “yes,” you have no business serving in a government whose first obligation is the security of the governed.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:34 amSo tomaig, you’d throw away what make this nation great just because some bad people lie? Sorry, but there isn’t a connection there. You are linking two things that share nothing. They should all still be given their day in court.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:34 amfakeRyan – go to Saudi Arabia to live. You’d be at home with their idea of justice. fool.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:36 amHey, TP,
Can you publish the e-mail address of the person clearly pretending to be Ryan Neat? We all know that Ryan didn’t suddenly get stupid overnight. Then we can all tell him what we really think of him and his lying ways. Thanks.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:36 amWhat you are obviously not getting is what it feels like to be terrorized. You lose control of your freedoms and are victomized. I’ll stop. Its clear you are all too stupid to figure out that we are still at war. Good luck when the terrorists come to kill you.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:41 amp.s.
Wayne,
You sound like you are crying to your mommy. Stop it and grow up.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:43 amI’m afraid of losing my civil rights before being a victim of terror.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:47 amI’ll take care of the terrorists on my block. That includes folks who take away my civil rights.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:48 amfakeryan – it’s you who is overcome by your own cowardice. I wasn’t in NY when the planes hit the WTC. But that didn’t stp me from feeling that we had all been attacked. It also didn’t make me want to chuck the good things about America under the guise of fear that you are all too willing to accept.
You are an idiot fake sir. Stand up and smell the coffee. America is greater than your tiny brain ever will be.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:58 am#28 At least I’m not hiding behind someone else’s good name and reputation. Are you too afraid to reveal your true identity?
November 15th, 2005 at 10:58 amWayne,
This is the mentality of the terrorists. They don’t play by the rules. This is why we should not give the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention or the Constitution. When they start to play by the rules (which will be never), then they will earn those rights.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:15 amTrolls who are too chickenshit to post under their own names: this proves to all that you are thieves. You have no class and only WISH you could speak as fluently and articulately as Ryan Neat.
You are truly wasting GOD’S time. Would he want that from a good Christian? Shouldn’t you be trying to save someone? You know, God sees you even when you try to hide.
Also, you aren’t very clever, posting as someone else has been done to death. This also proves your lack of ingenuity and independent thinking. Theives you are and unoriginal too. Funny though you prove your worth daily.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:23 amLook if 60% of Americans were gay, so would be all of the trolls (at least they would “act” gay to fit in). They hide and duck and do as the rest of the pack do. They have tiny egos and their opinion of their own self worth is minimal at best.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:26 amBecoming the very people you’re trying to defeat does not convince anyone that your way is better than theirs. It just proves that you don’t practice what you preach, and your message, therefore, is pointless.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:28 am” They should all still be given their day in court.
Comment by kindness —
Why? Why should we give these medieval murderers access to the courts, and more rights than have ever been afforded ANY wartime captives at ANY time in history? What makes these guys special?
We never gave the Germans or the Japanese or the North Koreans or the Vietnamese access to our courts – why should we go against history and allow this one particular group unprecedented access to our judicial system?
Is it because they harbor such seething hatred of All Things American and this makes you feel a special kinship with them because, hey, you hate America and all that she stands for as well?
November 15th, 2005 at 11:29 amI am so tired of hearing that because we don’t get down on our hands and knees to kiss the president’s ass, then we must hate America.
Exactly which one of our “American values” are we protecting when we deny someone the opportunity to defend themselves in court? Let’s suppose a hypothetical situation: You’re an Arab-American journalist who spent your first 24 years growing up inside the US. You decide to cover the War in Iraq. WHile there, some military (or even CIA) person picks you up while you;re covering a firefight and declares that you’re “an enemy combatant.” Is it your position that you should have no right whatsoever to go into a court and tell a judge that a mistake has been made? Is it your position that they should be allowed to keep you imprisoned indefinitely without even being told what the charges are? Is this what our “American values” are all about?
I don’t think so. And I think that anyone who does support indefinite detentions without trial does not understand what this country is all about. So spare me the attacks on my patriotism.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:37 amThe funny thing about faux ryan, is that he is so pissed off at compromise. The retarded right views compromise as a loss.Looooooooser
November 15th, 2005 at 11:41 amWe know the real Ryan by the fact that he makes perfect sense.
Ignore the troll masquerading as Ryan Neat!
The way I read this compromise on habeas corpus rights is that you could serve as much as 9 years and 29 days and have no right to appeal. I don’t know about anyone else, but I consider that to be a significant amount of time.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:43 amSo no answer to my questions, eh, Wayne? Why do you want to afford THESE particular prisoners more access and more rights than have ever been shown – in the history of warfare – towards any wartime captives?
What makes the Islamofascists so special and so deserving?
November 15th, 2005 at 12:44 pm#42 Everyone captured on a battlefield has rights under the Geneva Conventions. Everyone. And as for “the history of warfare”, obviously the Geneva Conventions didn’t exist for the vast majority of it. It’s not that the Islamofascists are “so deserving and so specialâ€, it’s that everyone deserves to be treated as a human being once they are taken into custody. And if I recall correctly, this administration fought against Jose Padilla (arrested on American soil) even getting a hearing to challenge his status. How is justice being served in that way? Just because you have decided that certain people are automatically guilty of whatever they are accused of doesn’t mean they should be treated as such.
What you and your supporters fail to understand is that you are talking about denying people the right to challenge their detention at all! What you want to see is the right of someone supposedly representing us being allowed to just SAY, “This guy is an enemy combatant”, and with that, deny the captured person even the right to get the mistake straightened out. No proof is required to declare someone an enemy combatant, just one person’s say-so.
I believe in justice, and this isn’t it. Remember, it could be you that gets picked up this way (or someone you know and care about.) Is this how you want our system of laws to operate? If we allow this, how long before we allow the police to pick someone up off the street, declare him an enemy combatant, and lock him up and throw away the key without the poor slob ever setting foot in a courtroom?
Personally, I believe that conservatives really don’t care about their fellow human beings. I really do believe that.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:08 pm#43 Personally, I believe that conservatives really don’t care about their fellow human beings. I really do believe that.
____
Conservatives only care about three classes of people: The Unborn, the Born-Again and the Undead (Schiavo.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:58 pm4 – they also care about the extremely wealthy.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:59 pm#42 Please clarify: Is it your transcendent bigotry or your perennial small-mindedness that more deeply informs your legal opinions regarding Muslim POWs? Just wondering.
Tomaig, me proud beauty — how we miss you at NewsHounds!
November 15th, 2005 at 2:05 pm#45 Yes, please amend my list to include the “Born-Rich.”
November 15th, 2005 at 2:06 pm#46 – please clarify – is it your “I Hate GWB!” blimders that render you unable to think past your frashman Sociology class, or just your inate stupidity?
“Conservatives only care about three classes of people: The Unborn, the Born-Again and the Undead…”
So who do you suppose helped more people in the wake of Hurricane katrina? Baptist churches, or the ACLU? Your ignorance and prejudice are staggering.
And still no answer to my question – why do you want to extend unprecedented rights and privileges on this particular group of captives? Why do Islamofascists dceserve what NO other group of wartime captives has ever been granted, i.e. access to the federal courts?
I keep coming back to that kinship-of-hatred-of-All- Things-American.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:15 pmJust because combatants picked up on the battlefield weren’t given the chance to challenge their detention BEFORE the Geneva Conventions were signed does not mean that we haven’t “progressed” to the point where we (as human beings on this planet we all share) have come to realize that maybe people should have that right. Read what I wrote. I wasn’t saying that any particular group of people should have what no one else in history has had. I’m saying that everyone should have the right to have their detention challenged in court, at the very least!
But people who think as you do don’t even want these people to have the right to have their families notified of their detention, or to have an attorney review their case, or be told why they are being held, or any number of inhuman things and unconstitutional things.
What your side is advocating is very, very dangerous. What your side wants is for the Executive Branch of the government to have the legal authority to, without having to answer to anyone for it, arrest someone and lock them up without ever having to tell anyone they did it. That is not one of the principles on which this country that you claim to love was founded. In fact, I believe it was one of the reasons we declared our independence from England.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:32 pm“I’m saying that everyone should have the right to have their detention challenged in court, at the very least!”
But that’s not what the Geneva conventions call for, is it? Nowhere does it compel nations to allow combatants access to the civilian court system, which is what you’re advocating.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:40 pmtomaig,
Thanks for continuing to demostrate the stupidity and ignorance that is republican fascism.
The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called “unlawful combatants,” are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): “nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.”
November 15th, 2005 at 2:43 pm#50 Is that your only sticking point? That they would have access to our court system? Do you think they should have access to ANY kind of court system?
What the President is advocating is that people like Jose Padilla shouldn’t have access to ANY kind of court in order to challenge his detention. Is that your position?
November 15th, 2005 at 2:44 pm#51 Thank you, Ryan. Now THAT sounds like the Ryan Neat we’ve all come to know and love. Somebody (I think it’s one of your ideological enemies) has been posting under your name, trying to make the rest of us believe that you went stupid overnight. Don’t worry, he didn’t fool us for a second.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:46 pmIt was a clone gone bad.
Very bad.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:56 pmWayne, thanks. Some of the whackos post as me sometimes, if it doesn’t sound like me, then you can be assured that it isn’t me :)
November 15th, 2005 at 2:59 pmWayne, I just noticed their posts. That sounded like either I-IzWrongY or MightyHermaphrodite. I embarrassed mighty moron for her complete lack of constitutional law (she claims to be a lawyer – bah, yeah right), so most likely it was his/her childishness you were witnessing. Clearly she’s one of those stupid fat retarded republican men in drag – not that they don’t have enough man boobs to pull it off.
That was DEFINITELY not me.
I was a bit busy last night, so I didn’t even notice someone was posting fraudulently as me.
November 15th, 2005 at 3:02 pmkindness,
Well the funny part is that none of the republicans are actually smart enough to sound like a progressive. Their arguments always show them up as the retarded delusional children that they are, even when they think they’re pulling it off. Poor little stupid whackos, when will they learn that they’re the kids on the short bus?
November 15th, 2005 at 3:03 pmyea, I’ve seen people pull it off at other sites. You have to start like they do, slow roll to making your wild accusations and finish with a bang. This guy was greedy, couldn’t wait for the good stuff. I bet his girlfriend (or boyfriend) says the very same thing!
Good to see you back.
November 15th, 2005 at 6:25 pm