It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by morder1
I like that after ten years, Fox news is suddenly outraged! All of a sudden, the patriot act restricts civil liberties! Permanent incarceration of "terrorists" is suddenly bad! Income tax... Well, okay, Fox news has always told its idiot listeners the lie that taxes are theft.
Nice to see they've caught up with the rest of the nation, who spent the greater part of the decade pointing this stuff out.
What's that, a Democrat's the president, you say? Oh, OHHHHHH, now Fox news' sudden position reversal makes sense.
Thankfully for them, the people who watch Fox have the attention span of a gnat on meth and so they probably won't notice that Fox used to practically advertise for these policies.
of course the permanant incarceration of innocent men is goddamned terrible. And yes, that executive order is Obama's fault. But, who primed it? Who set the situation up where there were indefinitely imprisoned people? Who's been scaring the fecal matter out of Americans with the prospect of those "terrorists" getting loose? Who paid the Northenr alliance to capture innocent men in the first place?
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by yeahright
If you can't read the law, and understand it, the implications and what it means, then no one here can help you.
The relevant sections are self-explanatory, fairly straight forward, and clearly explain the intent... while long winded it is all there.
I summarized it in my previous post, and if you still can't see it, then you simply don't want to.
Originally posted by miracleretiree
Is this fact? I know fox news is run by republicans. So,what bill can i research to find this as fact.
I wont say a word about this until i know it as fact.
Originally posted by Gooey6
Who primed it is the only intelligent thing you said here. You are too concerned with party lines.
Again a steady progression is evident no matter what "party" is in power. Troops are increased by both sides, civil rights are reduced by both sides, etc etc
You can read the same news story on any other news website, like salon.com, chicago tribune, etc...but I'm sure they all have right-winged agendas, right?
In short what I'm saying is, who cares what the source of the information is...it happend. And it scares me deeply that your primary concern is what television channel aired it and not the INHUMANITY of what our country just did.
Truly sad on your part.
Originally posted by morder1
I think "The Judge" is about the only thing I can stand to watch on Fox anymore...
On 30 May 1854, a new law provided that convicts would be forced to stay in French Guiana following their release for a time equal to their forced labour time, or, for sentences exceeding eight years, for the remainder of their lives. They were to be provided with land to settle on. In time, a variety of penal regimes emerged, convicts being divided into categories according to the severity of their crimes and their imprisonment or forced residence regime.[
The United States assumed territorial control over the southern portion of Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted it a perpetual lease of the area. The United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory. The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as illegal and insists the Cuban-American Treaty was obtained by threat of force in violation of international law.
The ongoing detention of prisoners at the base is in itself said to constitute a violation of the original treaty, which explicitly states that the United States is allowed "generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose." Such argument thus hinges upon whether detention of prisoners is a valid role of a naval or coaling station.