It is actually a political document. It has been the supreme court that turned it into law – to make your points, you have to look at the SC’s rulings

My original quip is about the ability to discuss the situation. There is little ground between the sides, thus one is unable to make any forward headway, end around, or out flank the opposition.

I give you an example of a battle not to fight.

I was trespassing on a piece of property to capture an image. I knew the owner, but he wasn’t home. His neighbor comes out and starts yelling at me – I told him who I am and told him things about his neighbor that he probably didn’t know. 100% of the time people here get the fact that I am who I say I am and I am not in a process of harm, but good.

This guy couldn’t let go – I realized immediately that he was unbalanced and I told him to call the cops. He said he couldn’t call, I ask why, and he says because it isn’t his property.

I went about my business – later the police called me.

I told the officer I have been trespassing here on the island for 17 years and I have never had a problem. The officer said that they are aware of my work and that they are watching the other guy closely. He asked me not to go back.

There are laws & there is reasonableness,

“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”.

We’ll save Australia;

Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo.

We’ll build an all-American amusement park there;

They’ve got surfing, too.

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/randy-newman/political-science.html

Ok I’ll read, but don’t make the mistake Gonzales made – look at the amendments too.

The tution is extremely vague to be a contract, in fact it does not have many of the elements required of a binding contract.

http://www.e-law.bc.ca/art_essential.html

they have legal rights under our constitution to be treated humanely..it may be that “convention” has come to accept a different interpretation. i invite you to read the constitution again..unbeleivably short document for what it is or refer to my sites over there.@ katrina

march 16 12:30

the founders were careful with their words..what may appear ambiguous can not have been carelessness or an oversightand..the early stirrings of manifest destiny was certainly in their hearts. contracts are always careful to define terms very specifically, good ones anyway (why people with trial experience tend to write the best ones) ..this document is no exeption…often CLEARLY stretching to include foreigners on american soil (necessary for commerce)

I’m not on that thread b/c the answer is too simple & too emotionally charged

The ‘law people’ are correct.

The answer is that the law needs to be changed.

The rationale is that we need these people – they aren’t here for a free lunch – We the People of the United States are getting a free lunch off their plate.

GL

over there i wrote because i feel strongly about this..

“our integrity..amongst ourselves and internationaly, depends upon how determined we are to maintain human rights, as defined by our own constitution, among all people placed in our hands..regardless of the circumstance.”

this is not some game’s rules printed on the back of the box..but a code of behavior and governmental architecture. people are inspired by it..outside this country..they are more than a little disapointed when they take a harder look at us.

btw my cousin was teaching school in jordan during the iraq invasion..the daughter of a combat veteran..she had to pretend to be canadian

In other words, back to the old laws “might makes Right”; and “an eye for an eye”?

Re: (ibid) “Therefore, when the enemy (as an example to contrast we can say the “old style enemy” like the Soviet Union during the Cold War) does not go by any known rules or laws, by flying planes into buildings, and while doing so creates a mostly new kind of battlefield, then the victim will fall prey to the aggressor unless he adapts to the new situation..”-

OK… even though 1. the Laws of Physics still apply; and 2. there have been suicide attacks using planes as far back as the 1940s (& earlier, if one considers Waldo Pepper’s attack on the haybarn… of course, that was during “barnstorming” days… and may have been seen as “within the rules” of the endeavors, in those times), let’s assume “We, the People”, stick by our guns, er, principles, and take our lumps, playing “By the Rules.” Let’s suppose that those who attacked on 9/11/01 continued, unabated, with this “new method of lawless warfare”- and we did… nothing. If they had the same level of success as we continued to provide them with extraordinary targets, and the planes full of people & fuel, EVERY DAY SINCE 9/11, the casualty figure would stand at around 6 million- about half the population of Greater NYC. (By contrast, the “old-style enemy” you mentioned, ie the Soviet Union, lost 20 million in their victorious struggle with Nazi Germany, in a slightly shorter time frame.)

Re: (ibid) ..”We are still a nation of laws and I don’t see any reason why that will ever change. But when it comes to the terrorists, “law” has very little value. The formulation is simple: if no American adaptation to “lawless” and unconventional attack of 911, then no survival..”

Does “adaptation” mean “giving up on our principles”? If so, then “hello, fascism; so long, USA”. The adaptation to “lawless” has been around for centuries: it is called “Law”- & it works. Adaptation to “unconventional attack” is around, too… it’s called “the Pentagon”- and it has Your Best Interests at heart- if you have the money…

Re: (ibid) ..” Propaganda is a shield from reality – or, say, a commercial manifestation that projects or protects the desired image of a given culture..”-

I agree… and a corporate-dominated media has a lot to project- and a lot to protect…

Re: ..”One can choose to be protected by it, or not. The only difference is that we have that choice, while others don’t..”-

Yes- we still have a choice- & the opportunity- to see other points of view, here, different from the ones promulgated by “traditional” media, despite efforts to discourage ‘looking elsewhere’ (eg the movement for the “cultural purity” of an “english-only” society, the eternal sneers directed at “foreign” news sources, the wave of dismissal of the blogosphere). As an American, though, one has little choice about being “protected” by propaganda… it’s out there… & if you’re out there, too- but don’t feel served by it- tough. Pretend you’re a Canadian, if you don’t wanna take the heat for the policies of your country… ^..^