|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 9:22:47 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
quote:
ORIGINAL: freakofnature
quote:
there has to be cause.
...'Cause they kill you.
quote:
as long as we tell them why,
...'Cause they kill you
quote:
Loving my enemy means affording him the rights I claim for myself, even if it leads to my own death.
Those at Guantanamo Bay are ones found on a battlefield. Not uniformed but found to be supporting those who kill you! Death I am not affraid of, it is the not seeing my children raised in the admonition of the Lord that I am affraid of. It is not seeing my daughters walk the isle on their wedding day, not seeing my son play in the NFL... Because if we give the terrorist and inch they will take it and more then you can forget rights because in Sharia, there are no exceptions... NONE and that ain't freedom. There will be no walking the isle because marriages will be arranged, no NFL for my son, none of those things. But above all, there WILL BE NO FREEDOM! I don't get what it is you don't understand. I love my enemy, but we are also required biblically to protect ourselves and our families. Just because we have to lock up some bad guys and kill some terrorist don't mean we don't love them. If they want to stop all of the killings and the war efforts, then they should cease and decist, but somehow I doubt they will do that.
The ends do not justify the means.
Why not just lock up anyone we capture indefinitely? After all that prostitute on the street corner doesn't have any rights. She's a criminal and commiting unlawful acts. Same with the sneak thief, the drug dealer, and the list goes on. Why treat any of them humanely? They are just scum after all. And after we get all them we can lock up people with political views we don't like. They aren't being good, patriotic Americas after all. We wouldn't have to tell them a thing, because no one has the right to know why they're being put in prison.
It's a very slippery slope we're skirting the edge of, and it's depressing to see Christians defending the administration's position. We cannot allow ourselves to lose our God given conscience in this matter.
Just for clarity... Did you vote for Mr. Bush?
John
I've voted independent since the Clinton years. I can't begin to say what it was but I always got a weird vibe from President Bush and that turned me off of voting for him. I cannot vote for a party that's done so much to get off track from their founding principles. I'm not sure how that matters but there you go.
Just curious with all this talk about morals and God... Since you mentioned him, did you vote for Clinton?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 9:33:23 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1981
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Sorry, where in does God teach that humans have the authority to make these judgements?
I didn't say He granted the anyone the authority... In fact my statement says otherwise...
John
My point is that there is an inherent human right to justice, and the fact that God summarily kills people without a trial doesn't mean that isn't justice. By default, God is just.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 9:39:24 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
Just curious with all this talk about morals and God... Since you mentioned him, did you vote for Clinton?
John
Oh heavens no! I voted independant, as I said. I voted Liberterian in the 90's and U.S. Taxpayer Party for the next few elections. I really believe in concepts of honor, justice, and doing what's right even if it hurts you in the short term.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 10:01:45 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11506
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
Apparently, the train of thought from our pacifist friends is that we should fight this war with "ideas".
I'm willing to overlook the fact that "ideas" is a nebulous concept at best in this area, but I would press forward and ask those so adamantly opposed to our current conflict exactly how they would wage this war of "ideas", and exactly what sort of victory that it should eventually lead to.
The opposition is quick to criticize what we're currently doing, but they tend to get awfully quiet when you ask for viable alternatives.
The floor is all yours, fellas......
1) I'm not a pacifist.
2) The viable alternative: quit dragging our feet and bring the Gitmo detainees to trial. Acquit or convict, then carry out the punishment. But quit leaving everything in limbo.
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 10:48:08 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 2069
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes I do happen to be a pacifist. I hate violence and I think that we should try nonviolent solutions first.
Non-violent solutions? What kind? A little specificity, please. And do you really think you'd get very far before you found yourself in an orange jumpsuit, seated on a floor and the guy with the goatknife standing behind you? All that remains is for the camera guy to say "Action!"
quote:
It's about how we treat the enemy once we capture them in the course of this war
We preferably detain them so that they cannot do any more harm to our soldlers. Odd that you never seem that torn up over the enemy combatants who were shot and killed instead of captured....
quote:
All it does is allow them to challenge the reasons behind their imprisonment
They're not citizens. It doesn't apply.
quote:
It's very simple. It's that Jesus had it right when he said to love your neighbor as yourself.
If you kill someone-especially a civilian- that person's family isn't going to be your biggest fan. In fact, if the family doesn't think the guy was involved in terrorism, you may have just created several new terrorists.
So if we kill one civilian for every terrorist we kill, and every dead civilian means 1.5 new terrorists, we are up against an adversary greater than the Russian army- we're up against math. In the deluded universe of neoconservatism, we may be able to defeat math or reverse gravity so that all terrorists fall upwards to their deaths, but in the real world, killing someone in a way that may be unjust has far-reaching consequences.
You say it's very simple to explain how you would fight the war with "ideas", then you type three paragraphs and never explain a thing. Just more criticism of the current methods. Yawn.
quote:
As for Iraq, the best solution seems to be to split it up into three countries to try and end the civil war, and most importantly, not have our troops babysitting it
Again, HOW. A few specifics would be nice.
quote:
quit dragging our feet and bring the Gitmo detainees to trial. Acquit or convict, then carry out the punishment. But quit leaving everything in limbo
I'm all for that, but I'm not interested in doing it in accordance with what the detainees think is prudent. I couldn't care less what OUR ENEMIES thnk.....
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 10:50:16 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
1) I'm not a pacifist.
2) The viable alternative: quit dragging our feet and bring the Gitmo detainees to trial. Acquit or convict, then carry out the punishment. But quit leaving everything in limbo.
In all due respect, this would be a horrible precedent to set.
At the end of WWII we had over 425,000 POWs in the US. Not single one expected, or got, a regular civil trial. For us to suddenly start giving such trials would establish a precedent that all prisoners of war should be extended American civil liberties - and as Chief Justice Roberts rightly asked, what is the limit?
Do we have to read Miranda rights on the field of battle?
Right this very minute in Afganistan our Marines are fighting Taliban that have made there way back into the country. Do they have to get a court order to search houses for these villians?
If they capture a Taliban fighter today, does that terrorist have the right to consult a lawyer before answering questions about the whereabouts of his compatriots?
Do these terrorists, once captured, have a right to see classified American military comunications that were the basis for their capture?
If you don't think any of these rights should be extended to our enemies, on what basis do you claim to base the right that they should have a 'trial', and how do they have a trial in an American civil court when no other legal rights have been extended?
No one seems to have thought the logic of this through, particularly the majority on the court.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 10:57:30 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
Habeas Corpus is not an American invention. It was enacted, as another poster stated, in the Magna Carta and is recognized by most countries. These prisoners do have the right to challenge their imprisonment and face the charges against them. It's not giving them carte blanche access to our courts or most sensitive documents and it's lunacy to try and spin it that way.
Also tafkam, there are those who might kill me because I'm a Christian. This should bother me? I've understood that for years and I still feel to the core of my being that it is better to die while standing firm in my beliefs and trusting in God than it is to die in dishonor and living a lie.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 11:02:09 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11506
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
1) I'm not a pacifist.
2) The viable alternative: quit dragging our feet and bring the Gitmo detainees to trial. Acquit or convict, then carry out the punishment. But quit leaving everything in limbo.
In all due respect, this would be a horrible precedent to set.
At the end of WWII we had over 425,000 POWs in the US. Not single one expected, or got, a regular civil trial. For us to suddenly start giving such trials would establish a precedent that all prisoners of war should be extended American civil liberties - and as Chief Justice Roberts rightly asked, what is the limit?
I never said anything about a civil trial. Military tribunal works for me.
quote:
Do we have to read Miranda rights on the field of battle?
Right this very minute in Afganistan our Marines are fighting Taliban that have made there way back into the country. Do they have to get a court order to search houses for these villians?
If they capture a Taliban fighter today, does that terrorist have the right to consult a lawyer before answering questions about the whereabouts of his compatriots?
They're in the field of battle. Different circumstances, different rules. You're taking this WAAAY beyond the SC ruling. We're talking about the Gitmo detainees here, not about those in the field of battle.
quote:
Do these terrorists, once captured, have a right to see classified American military comunications that were the basis for their capture?
I don't know - is that required in a military tribunal?
quote:
If you don't think any of these rights should be extended to our enemies, on what basis do you claim to base the right that they should have a 'trial', and how do they have a trial in an American civil court when no other legal rights have been extended?
No one seems to have thought the logic of this through, particularly the majority on the court.
No one said anything about a civil court.
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 11:03:50 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
You won't find "rights" in the Bible...unless you're looking at the democratic paragon of Rome. My Bible says I should get what I deserve, but Jesus took care of that on my behalf. I have no rights...I belong to God, not myself...I am dead to "self". So says Paul, so we can argue that point with him when we get to heaven, if we still so desire.
Actually, the OT did grant people rights, in so much as it related to the government God had established in Isreal.
But in the case of the American theory on rights, our rights really have to do with a recognition of the realities of human nature in light of how we were created, what human nature has become, and how to limit the worst abuses of human nature.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 11:04:48 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 2069
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
it is to die in dishonor and living a lie.
So our troops are dying in dishonor and living a lie?
I never had the honor of serving in the military, but if I had, I would sure have a hard time laying my life on the line for people who think the way you do...
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 11:13:54 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
I never said anything about a civil trial. Military tribunal works for me.
But that is not what the court said. This decision supports civil hearings.
quote:
They're in the field of battle. Different circumstances, different rules. You're taking this WAAAY beyond the SC ruling. We're talking about the Gitmo detainees here, not about those in the field of battle.
Afganistan and Iraq were fields of battle last I checked.
quote:
I don't know - is that required in a military tribunal?
The court granted the right to a civil hearing.
quote:
No one said anything about a civil court.
That is what the Supreme Court just decided. The detaines were already getting hearings before Combat Status Review Tribunals.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 11:22:22 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
it is to die in dishonor and living a lie.
So our troops are dying in dishonor and living a lie?
I never had the honor of serving in the military, but if I had, I would sure have a hard time laying my life on the line for people who think the way you do...
Dude. You have just crossed the line.
My father is a veteran, my uncles were all veterans, I've had teachers who were WW2 vets and my brother in spirit is currently serving in the army. I respect their service more than mere words can say because I was unable to serve due to my health.
Granting the Gitmo prisoners habeas corpus doesn't endanger those noble heroes who serve on the field of battle.
I support our troops, but not the administration. Those are two different things and it's sickening that there are so many who treat them as one and the same.
See I live by my morals and my honor. My father taught me that. It would be a disservice to our noble heroes in the military to pretend that I feel differently than I do. So kindly don't go there again.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 11:33:40 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 2069
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Dude. You have just crossed the line.
So what, you crossed one when you support a decision that emboldens our enemies and endangers our troops.
quote:
I support our troops, but not the administration. Those are two different things and it's sickening that there are so many who treat them as one and the same.
Um, dude? The President is the commander in chief of the military.....they are one and the same.
quote:
So kindly don't go there again.
Um, it's a discussion board....unless it violates TOS, I'll "go" where I please. Thank you very much.
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 11:39:33 PM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3538
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
You people taking up for a group that does not want to be taken up for by you infadels. They refuse counsel. I had a link to it, on a different post. They want to be killed for thier ( religon), and want you to die for their false God. It honors them to be tortured, why deny them?
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/18/2008 11:40:17 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
Dude. You have just crossed the line.
So what, you crossed one when you support a decision that emboldens our enemies and endangers our troops.
quote:
I support our troops, but not the administration. Those are two different things and it's sickening that there are so many who treat them as one and the same.
Um, dude? The President is the commander in chief of the military.....they are one and the same.
quote:
So kindly don't go there again.
Um, it's a discussion board....unless it violates TOS, I'll "go" where I please. Thank you very much.
Habeas Corpus is the morally correct route to take. It doesn't mean they have to be tried in civilian court. It doesn't give them carte blanche access to our nation's secrets. All it does is say that they have the right to confront the charges against them. It is immoral and evil to hold people indefinitely without charge. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand this but my, and other people's, supporting of the ruling doesn't make us bad Americans.
The President may be commander in chief but that doesn't mean that he IS the armed forces. His decisions can be dissected and discussed, even dissented with, that's our right as Americans under the First Ammendment. We've done things that aren't right and it has to stop.
The thing you, or anyone else hasn't been able to counter is this simple statement: The ends do not justify the means. Period.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 12:13:29 AM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 2069
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The ends do not justify the means. Period.
If it gives us the upper hand in this conflict, then yes it does.
This is not a conventional war, where there are rules of engagement that are more or less followed by both sides, like a boxing tournament.
The WOT is more like a street fight, and the only way we will win it is to match them brutality for brutality. It's the only language they understand.
Your notion of let's-all-hold-hands-and-turn-those-frowns-upside-down-and-play-nice simply will NOT work.....
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 12:33:52 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
The ends do not justify the means. Period.
If it gives us the upper hand in this conflict, then yes it does.
This is not a conventional war, where there are rules of engagement that are more or less followed by both sides, like a boxing tournament.
The WOT is more like a street fight, and the only way we will win it is to match them brutality for brutality. It's the only language they understand.
Your notion of let's-all-hold-hands-and-turn-those-frowns-upside-down-and-play-nice simply will NOT work.....
Then we've lost the moral highground and we're no better than the enemy. If that's truly the only way to win we've forgotten the first rule of the fanatic: "When you become obsessed with the enemy you become the enemy."
I refuse to believe that we have to allow our honored soldiers become monsters to win this war. It seems to be more about revenge than justice at that point and God is very clear that vengence is His and His alone.
Your mischaracterization of mine, and other's, stance is pretty indicitive of the fact that you don't want legitimate discussion. You want to bully everyone into agreeing with you and that's just not going to work with me.
We don't want the holding hands approach as you oh so snidely suggest. We want to win honorablly and through doing what's right. We want to maintain the moral highground by doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, as Christ taught us. We want to win through the will and blessings of Almighty God not through the kind of tactics that the enemy would use (you may take that in whatever context you will).
Truth, honor, justice, righteousness and love. These things are of God.
I'll close with some words from G.K. Chesterton:
"The true soldier fights, not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
If we fight with hatred in our hearts for what is before us, we have lost before we've even begun.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 12:57:42 AM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 2069
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I refuse to believe that we have to allow our honored soldiers become monsters to win this war.
No, but allowing them to fight the way they should to win, without having to second guess what might be done to them in a given situation, is a good place to start.
It's really very simple...they fire at us, we fire at them, the last man to fire wins. And your problem with this would be?
quote:
You want to bully everyone into agreeing with you and that's just not going to work with me.
Hardly, It's just a barrel of fun pointing out how misguided your ideas are.
quote:
We want to win honorablly and through doing what's right. We want to maintain the moral highground by doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, as Christ taught us. We want to win through the will and blessings of Almighty God
Specifics. S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C-S. The platitudes and Christian catchphrases sound nice, but you have yet to articulate exactly what you would have us do. This makes the third time I have asked. Is the question really that hard?
quote:
If we fight with hatred in our hearts for what is before us, we have lost before we've even begun.
I think most rational Americans hate what the terrorists stand for, and rightfully so....
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 2:16:58 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
I refuse to believe that we have to allow our honored soldiers become monsters to win this war.
No, but allowing them to fight the way they should to win, without having to second guess what might be done to them in a given situation, is a good place to start.
It's really very simple...they fire at us, we fire at them, the last man to fire wins. And your problem with this would be?
quote:
You want to bully everyone into agreeing with you and that's just not going to work with me.
Hardly, It's just a barrel of fun pointing out how misguided your ideas are.
quote:
We want to win honorablly and through doing what's right. We want to maintain the moral highground by doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, as Christ taught us. We want to win through the will and blessings of Almighty God
Specifics. S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C-S. The platitudes and Christian catchphrases sound nice, but you have yet to articulate exactly what you would have us do. This makes the third time I have asked. Is the question really that hard?
quote:
If we fight with hatred in our hearts for what is before us, we have lost before we've even begun.
I think most rational Americans hate what the terrorists stand for, and rightfully so....
So much for Christ's admonission to love our enemies then. Good to know that we know better than God on that one. 
You want specifics here you go:
1. If the enemy offers surrender, accept it.
2. Don't shoot unarmed civilians.
3. Proceed with trials of the Gitmo prisoners of war and observe habeas corpus.
4. Understand, and I know this one is hard for you tam, that the ends never justify the means. If we go that route then we're no better than the terrorists we claim to want to defeat.
5. Adopt the principle of treating the prisoners humanely and cease torturous acts immediately.
6. As a nation pray to Almighty for the protection of the nation and go back to Biblical principles of leadership, which don't include lying to the people about what you're doing.
7. Observe habeas corpus
8. Observe habeas corpus (Which by the way is NOT the same as Miranda rights, that's a strawman argument and not a particularly clever one)
How's that for a start? Oh wait I forgot, no one has rights unless YOU say that they do. Even though your argument has been spurious at best in that regard. Either they should be tried or let go. You cannot hold people like that indefinitely. It's immoral. That's something that you can't really argue against and no one has even remotely tried.
I won't be bullied or pushed around because my views happen to be different than yours. I've actually thought these things through. Can you say the same or are you too caught up in hating the enemy when you should be praying for their salvation?
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 2:48:49 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
8. Observe habeas corpus (Which by the way is NOT the same as Miranda rights, that's a strawman argument and not a particularly clever one)
No one said they were the 'same' - what was said, by a few Supreme Court justices no less, was that if we start granting these sorts of rights contrary to precedent and during a time of war, what end is there to it?
Of course liberals have no answer for this, because the decision is not based on sound law. In fact, those who laud this ruling seem not to realize that it is so vague, and so lacking in any substantive remedies, that it is unlikely to result in the relese of a single prisoner from Gitmo.
And the other thing liberals simply don't acknowledge (or perhaps don't know) is that the Constitution of the US has a suspension clause for habeas rights in just such circumstances as we find ourselves now - so while there are God given rights, there are also God given authorities and legitimate exercises of those authorities.
Habeas corpus should never be seen as an excuse to allow those intent on doing evil to go free.
And you want to know what the greatest irony of all is? Borh candidates for President supported shutting down Gitmo - so it would have been shut down either way, according to the correct political process - but now we have to deal with yet another usurpation of power by the SC, and it is already polarizing the issue needlessly.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 2:51:38 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
8. Observe habeas corpus (Which by the way is NOT the same as Miranda rights, that's a strawman argument and not a particularly clever one)
No one said they were the 'same' - what was said, by a few Supreme Court justices no less, was that if we start granting these sorts of rights contrary to precedent and during a time of war, what end is there to it?
Of course liberals have no answer for this, because the decision is not based on sound law. In fact, those who laud this ruling seem not to realize that it is so vague, and so lacking in any substantive remedies, that it is unlikely to result in the relese of a single prisoner from Gitmo.
And the other thing liberals simply don't acknowledge (or perhaps don't know) is that the Constitution of the US has a suspension clause for habeas rights in just such circumstances as we find ourselves now - so while there are God given rights, there are also God given authorities and legitimate exercises of those authorities.
Habeas corpus should never be seen as an excuse to allow those intent on doing evil to go free.
And you want to know what the greatest irony of all is? Borh candidates for President supported shutting down Gitmo - so it would have been shut down either way, according to the correct political process - but now we have to deal with yet another usurpation of power by the SC, and it is already polarizing the issue needlessly.
Habeas Corpus wouldn't set them free. It would just give them the ability to challenge their imprisonment, most likely before a military tribunal.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 2:59:17 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Habeas Corpus wouldn't set them free. It would just give them the ability to challenge their imprisonment, most likely before a military tribunal.
It's like you folks still aren't getting it - this has nothing to do with military tribunals. The court granted them civil rights to be administered in a federal district court.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 6:34:09 AM
|
|
|
tracydolls
Posts: 1839
Joined: 3/30/2008
Status: offline
|
What are Americans gonna do when they start locking them up and throwing away the key?
These are humans! If all the suicide bombers died in the planes , who are the 600 they are holding?
WE should not be locking away people with no rights whatsoever.
Where is that in the Bible, please somebody show me where there is a verse that says they have no right to anything, we are to hate them and kill them, just because they "look" like terrorists?
then I fit the bill also.
I talk about out Gov't EVERY chance I get, I'm brown skinned, cover my head most days, if you pick thru my life you can find where I have said ......
When does this end? How many can we lock up? Are we gonna ever win the war on terrorism? How?
< Message edited by tracydolls -- 6/19/2008 6:59:47 AM >
_____________________________
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 8:28:58 AM
|
|
|
PhunkD
Posts: 217
Joined: 2/17/2008
Status: offline
|
One side of this argument mostly appeals to fear of the enemy, and trust in our government and its soldiers.
The other side mostly appeals to doing the right thing, loving the enemy, and trusting God.
I don't care about being practical, or being afraid, I want to be faithful.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
