|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 11:13:46 PM
|
|
|
PhunkD
Posts: 217
Joined: 2/17/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
To those who say the constitution does not apply to non-citizens: On what do you base this opinion? I cannot find this in the constitution.
Second question: where do rights come from? I believe that the declaration of independence got it right: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights endowed by our creator. Maybe this reality trumps any constitutional argument.
I understand that a person may forfeit these rights, but I don't believe that it should be without due process.
Still waiting for an answer . . .
Still waiting.
Anyone have a better answer than, "just because?"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/13/2008 11:53:45 PM
|
|
|
sue244
Posts: 409
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
To those who say the constitution does not apply to non-citizens: On what do you base this opinion? I cannot find this in the constitution.
Second question: where do rights come from? I believe that the declaration of independence got it right: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights endowed by our creator. Maybe this reality trumps any constitutional argument.
I understand that a person may forfeit these rights, but I don't believe that it should be without due process.
Still waiting for an answer . . .
Still waiting.
Anyone have a better answer than, "just because?"
the Preamble states that it is for US citiznes.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
_____________________________
"Indeed I Tremble for this country when I reflect that God is Just and His Justice cannot Sleep Forever"
Jefferson
"Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 12:03:06 AM
|
|
|
PhunkD
Posts: 217
Joined: 2/17/2008
Status: offline
|
That's all that you have?
Read the sentence. It says that "we" are establishing the law--not that it only applies to us.
I also noticed that you didn't highlight "promote the general welfare," which would highlight the biblical idea that we are blessed to be a blessing to others.
Wasn't this war about spreading Democracy once? What better way to spread it than to practice it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 12:10:54 AM
|
|
|
sue244
Posts: 409
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
I figured since this tread was about the SC rulling Defense was more appopriate.
_____________________________
"Indeed I Tremble for this country when I reflect that God is Just and His Justice cannot Sleep Forever"
Jefferson
"Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 12:33:56 AM
|
|
|
Jeff_from_Kentucky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 7/5/2006
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
|
I agree. It says "We the people of the United States," not "We the people of the United States and any gutless terrorist that we happen to capture in the future."
Besides, can you point to anything in the Constitution that does say that these terrorists do have any rights under our law? If there is, I can't find it.
_____________________________
<< Frank Seamans and my son Jeffrey - September, 2007
"For me to live is Christ and to die is gain." Philippians 1:21
Dispatchers tell cops where to go!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 1:10:57 AM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
Is anyone suprised that liberals have sided with terrorists? It isn't like it's the first time. They expose our attempts to spy on them. They want to give them our battle plans. And when we capture them, they try to get them out of prison.
Liberal activist Lynn Stewart was the lawyer for Omar Abdel-Rahman, who among other terrorist acts, was convicted for blowing up a car bomb in the garage of the World Trade Center. Stewart was later convicted of smuggling communication between Rahman and his followers from his prison cell.
When Saddam Hussein was captured, Jimmy Carter's attorney general came to the rescue. Ramsey Clark actually joined Hussein's legal defense team.
We should expect liberals to thwart our military.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 1:13:58 AM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
Then why were they captured on the BATTLEFIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most of them weren't.
quote:
Is anyone suprised that liberals have sided with terrorists? It isn't like it's the first time. They expose our attempts to spy on them. They want to give them our battle plans. And when we capture them, they try to get them out of prison.
Liberal activist Lynn Stewart was the lawyer for Omar Abdel-Rahman, who among other terrorist acts, was convicted for blowing up a car bomb in the garage of the World Trade Center. Stewart was later convicted of smuggling communication between Rahman and his followers from his prison cell.
When Saddam Hussein was captured, Jimmy Carter's attorney general came to the rescue. Ramsey Clark actually joined Hussein's legal defense team.
We should expect liberals to thwart our military. I could retort by saying that conservatives are seeking to thwart our human rights in the chase for terrorism, but that would be incorrect, because not all conservatives are comfortable with doing the wrong thing. It is equally wrong to say that all liberals are.
< Message edited by scutus -- 6/14/2008 1:21:23 AM >
_____________________________
Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur.
—Cicero, De Finibus, 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 1:23:13 AM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
quote:
Then why were they captured on the BATTLEFIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most of them weren't.
quote:
Is anyone suprised that liberals have sided with terrorists? It isn't like it's the first time. They expose our attempts to spy on them. They want to give them our battle plans. And when we capture them, they try to get them out of prison.
Liberal activist Lynn Stewart was the lawyer for Omar Abdel-Rahman, who among other terrorist acts, was convicted for blowing up a car bomb in the garage of the World Trade Center. Stewart was later convicted of smuggling communication between Rahman and his followers from his prison cell.
When Saddam Hussein was captured, Jimmy Carter's attorney general came to the rescue. Ramsey Clark actually joined Hussein's legal defense team.
We should expect liberals to thwart our military. I could retort by saying that conservatives are seeking to thwart our human rights in the chase for terrorism, but that would be incorrect, because not all conservatives are comfortable with doing the wrong thing. It is equally wrong to say that all liberals are.
Our soldiers risk their lives capturing terrorists only to have liberals try to set them free.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 1:54:28 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1216
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
The first world trade center bombing for one. That was in 93, I believe. So from 93 to 01 there were no attacks on our soil. I know that embassies are considered american soil but I'm talking about ACTUALLY in the U.S. on U. S. soil.
quote:
All the above took place while the administration at the time did little or nothing to deal with the brewing threat that later unleased its attack on 9/11... The previous administartion did as much as it could get support for. Remember, everyone was waaaay more interested in a certain person's sex life at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 2:13:57 AM
|
|
|
Jeff_from_Kentucky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 7/5/2006
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady
The previous administartion did as much as it could get support for.
No they did not. Don't forget that President Clinton turned down THREE opportunities to take bin Laden into custody. You never hear the liberals talk about that do you? Oh sure, he bombed an aspirin factory in the Sudan and blew up some empty tents in Afghanistan but the truth is, Clinton dropped the ball and left Bush with the problems.
_____________________________
<< Frank Seamans and my son Jeffrey - September, 2007
"For me to live is Christ and to die is gain." Philippians 1:21
Dispatchers tell cops where to go!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 3:20:50 AM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
Our soldiers risk their lives capturing terrorists only to have liberals try to set them free.
Your troops don't actually capture the 'terrorists' (what happened to innocent before being proven guilty?), the suspects are captured in Pakistan and Afghanistan (and not on battlefields either), most often via kidnapping. There are often high standing monetary rewards for such captures, thus the possibility that innocent people are ending up in the wrong hands exists.
_____________________________
Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur.
—Cicero, De Finibus, 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 3:43:37 AM
|
|
|
Jeff_from_Kentucky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 7/5/2006
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
Your troops don't actually capture the 'terrorists' (what happened to innocent before being proven guilty?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck! These terrorists are being captured in known terrorist camps. They are terrorists no matter what you chose to call them. And innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in wartime.
Just how many more innocent civilians have to be killed by the terrorists before you people wake up and smell the coffee? I guess those who were murdered on 9/11 weren't enough for you.
< Message edited by Jeff_from_Kentucky -- 6/14/2008 3:50:36 AM >
_____________________________
<< Frank Seamans and my son Jeffrey - September, 2007
"For me to live is Christ and to die is gain." Philippians 1:21
Dispatchers tell cops where to go!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 4:42:32 AM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
Your troops don't actually capture the 'terrorists' (what happened to innocent before being proven guilty?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck! You're so right! That black teen walking past the shop shortly before it was robbed? Obviously the culprit, because he was suspicious. Definitely.
quote:
These terrorists are being captured in known terrorist camps. They are terrorists no matter what you chose to call them. And innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in wartime. What about this guy? Where was he captured? And this guy? If you go back a few pages, I've cited a paper that says that most of the Camp X-ray detainees were not captured on the battlefield. In fact most of them were kidnapped, sometimes off the street or from their homes.
Even if only some of them were captured under dubious circumstances, that fact alone should trigger alarm and investigation.
quote:
Just how many more innocent civilians have to be killed by the terrorists before you people wake up and smell the coffee? I guess those who were murdered on 9/11 weren't enough for you.
Don't you dare try to use 9/11 on me to implicate me as a traitor.
< Message edited by scutus -- 6/14/2008 4:49:18 AM >
_____________________________
Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur.
—Cicero, De Finibus, 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 4:52:21 AM
|
|
|
Jeff_from_Kentucky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 7/5/2006
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
Don't you dare try to use 9/11 on me to implicate me as a traitor.
I will say whatever I believe because America still has freedom of speech in spite of the efforts of the liberals.
I agree with President Bush when he said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists," which by the way is one of the few things on which I do agree with him. These terrorists are out to kill everyone who doesn't share their views. That includes you, me, our families, and pretty much everyone we know. They want to destroy our way of life. Do you believe that you would be able to speak out against them if they were in charge? You could try but they would kill you for it.
The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can take care of this issue by whatever means are necessary. And yes, this is a case of the ends justifying the means. This is a matter of survival!
_____________________________
<< Frank Seamans and my son Jeffrey - September, 2007
"For me to live is Christ and to die is gain." Philippians 1:21
Dispatchers tell cops where to go!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 9:23:13 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
Don't you dare try to use 9/11 on me to implicate me as a traitor.
I will say whatever I believe because America still has freedom of speech in spite of the efforts of the liberals.
I agree with President Bush when he said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists," which by the way is one of the few things on which I do agree with him. These terrorists are out to kill everyone who doesn't share their views. That includes you, me, our families, and pretty much everyone we know. They want to destroy our way of life. Do you believe that you would be able to speak out against them if they were in charge? You could try but they would kill you for it.
The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can take care of this issue by whatever means are necessary. And yes, this is a case of the ends justifying the means. This is a matter of survival!
And to this allow me to ask this very pointed and, admittedly, inflamatory question.
Does God believe that the ends justify the means? Is any of this the kind of thing that Jesus would advocate doing? Would He say that imprisoning someone without charge or trial for an indefinite period of time is ok and justifiable under God's law?
If the ends justify the means, as you are saying, then we are just as evil as the terrorists themselves, because we're doing the very same thing. Objectively this is true, and if we've truly fallen that far then there's no point to even having a constitution any more. Make Bush President for life and cross the final line into a dictatorship.
Weep for our honored soldiers if we can no longer even have legitimate dissent without labeling a person as a terrorist themsevles. They fight and die for our rights and the laws of the land and this is what we reduce those rights and laws to.
At least you're honest though. You have freedom of speach and we don't. It's ok to make false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ and call them terrorist sympathizers because they believe what Bush is doing is morally reprehensible.
Just something to think about there.
< Message edited by jkdjr25 -- 6/14/2008 9:30:15 AM >
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 9:38:49 AM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 706
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
Has it ever occured to any of you who sympathize with these terrorists, that they have vowed to wipe Israel off the map?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 9:52:30 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn
Has it ever occured to any of you who sympathize with these terrorists, that they have vowed to wipe Israel off the map?
This isn't about sympathy. This is about doing what's right, regardless of whether or not it's easy.
It is not right, in any sense of the word, to hold a person indefinitely and without trial. Period.
I have faith that Almighty God will protect and defend Israel.
The ends never justify the means. That is not what God teaches us.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 10:03:47 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5782
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
(what happened to innocent before being proven guiltyare ending up in the wrong hands exists.
It still applies to citizens of the United States, but that priveledge should not be extended to foreign terrorist.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 10:05:30 AM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 275
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
Has it ever occured to any of you who sympathize with these terrorists, that they have vowed to wipe Israel off the map?
I would now like to ask everyone in this thread who "sympathizes" with actual terrorists, or wants to set them all free and send them off with public welfare, or whatever else has been alleged in a number of posts, to step forward now.
I ask this because I highly doubt that there are actually any of these evil "liberals" present who want to do these exaggerated and ridiculous things. Avoiding insulting hyperbole might add some civility to the discussion.
quote:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck! These terrorists are being captured in known terrorist camps. They are terrorists no matter what you chose to call them. And innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in wartime.
Just how many more innocent civilians have to be killed by the terrorists before you people wake up and smell the coffee? I guess those who were murdered on 9/11 weren't enough for you.
I'm confused. Surely if you have evidence that they are terrorists, they can then be tried and convicted. The Supreme Court ruling isn't declaring that everyone is innocent and has to be released. At most it would suggest that those who are apprehended should now be charged and tried.
The fact that people seem unwilling to actually try and convict the people who have been arrested is rather disturbing. It would seem to suggest there is concern that there is not actually evidence against them. And despite how one wishes to interpret who the Constitution applies to and who it doesn't, I would have thought the right to be tried and convicted, rather than simply jailed indefinitely, was a fairly basic human right. This would seem to be backed by international treaties the U.S., among other countries, has signed onto, and while those aren't binding in national legal precedent, it's fairly disturbing if a country publicly espouses principles of human rights and then ignores those supposed rights when it actually matters.
Terrorists are human beings. I don't think I'm being sympathetic to their cause simply by observing this fact.
quote:
The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can take care of this issue by whatever means are necessary. And yes, this is a case of the ends justifying the means. This is a matter of survival!
This is a fairly common and tempting approach in politics, though I'm not sure it has much in the way of moral support from the teachings of the gospel we follow.
quote:
It still applies to citizens of the United States, but that priveledge should not be extended to foreign terrorist.
Terorrism is a category of crime, not an identity. Normally we wait until after someone's convicted of the crime before punishing them by removing their rights.
< Message edited by fiat_lux -- 6/14/2008 10:23:01 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 10:27:42 AM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11455
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
quote:
I will say whatever I believe because America still has freedom of speech in spite of the efforts of the liberals.
No, you cannot say whatever you think on these forums. Please re-read Terms of Service #6, which states the following (emphasis mine):
quote:
6. You will not harass, threaten, embarrass or distress users, either in the community itself or via personal email, phone, physical mail or in person. You will not engage in name-calling or personal attacks in the course of discussion or debate. You will not post inflammatory remarks simply for the purpose for evoking reaction or starting fights with other community members (Often referred to as "trolling"). Overall, promoting a spirit of divisiveness in the chat and forums community will not be tolerated.
- Attacking the character or motives of someone who differs with your view or denying that he or she is a Christian is unacceptable.
Please be aware of this in future posts.
Thanks!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 10:42:10 AM
|
|
|
LivingParadox
Posts: 926
Joined: 2/28/2007
Status: offline
|
Disclaimer: I'm venturing into this thread with only reading the OP and not all the comments --
Although, I tend to lean conservative on most issues -- we need to start dealing with the combatants we have at Gitmo. It's kind of a quagmire because if we let someone go and they kill our people -- well, that's bad. But I think as American, we are called to a higher standard based on the standards we've imposed on ourselves. The detainees are people and deserve to be treated in the image of God. I pray with much wisdom and discernment we begin to deal with each as individuals. After all, are we going to keep the detainees indefinitely -- the rest of their natural lives? I don't pretend no the answers but I do believe we have to start dealing with this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 11:40:12 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 754
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Why would we care what they 'confess' to?
Because that is what they use to justify torture, which is used to justify the WoT. "We extracted information" really means, "We broke somebody down physically, mentally, and emotionally until they admitted whatever we wanted them to admit." It's all about power and corruption, and it always has been. It's about being able to say, "Look at the progress we are making" in order to justify their programs.
Cops and courts bust innocent people with bogus charges just so they and the mayor/governor can prove how tough they are on crime.
Businesses cook the books in order to show one picture to their shareholders while showing another to the taxman.
NPOs and activist organizations use propaganda to demonstrate the indespensibility of their missions, thereby justifying their need for more funding.
And the military is trying like all get-out to prove that they are "winning" the war on terror as long as they don't have to play by those inconvenient rules that have been held inviolable by western civilization ever since the Magna Carta.
The very idea of this philosophy should chill to the bone anyone who holds dear their civil liberties, and truly believes in the fundamental principles that this country was founded upon-- justice, inalienable rights, and liberty for every man in a free land.
The SCOTUS did the only thing they could in order to insure that there is anything left in this country that still upholds its original ideals about justice.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/14/2008 11:53:19 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 11:45:11 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 754
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LivingParadox
But I think as American, we are called to a higher standard based on the standards we've imposed on ourselves.
LivingParadox, you just said it all!
We are supposed to be the goods guys. How anyone can justify us condoning the tactics of ruthless despots is beyond me . . .
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 1:54:01 PM
|
|
|
SweetPea213
Posts: 63
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Why would we care what they 'confess' to?
Because that is what they use to justify torture, which is used to justify the WoT. "We extracted information" really means, "We broke somebody down physically, mentally, and emotionally until they admitted whatever we wanted them to admit." It's all about power and corruption, and it always has been. It's about being able to say, "Look at the progress we are making" in order to justify their programs.
Thank you! Sounds like someone gets it! In a court of law, coerced confessions are inadmissable! If you coerce, or in the case of Abu Gharib torture, someone into a confession--then they are more likely than not going confess to anything you want them to.
When you are being tried in an American court of law--All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Bush and his cronies are trying to twist this around to "guilty until proven innocent". Why? Because it fits *their* agendas, it "justifies" the WOT and the use of torturing prisoners into confessions. It gives Bush a reason to revoke a suspects right to Habeas Corpus (a fair trial).
Think of this: If you are arrested in Iraq or Afghanistan do you think you will be treated differently than other prisoners (citizens of those countries) just because you are an American citizen? No. You would be treated just like any other Iraqi or Afghan prisoner. You would be subject to Iraqi laws or Afghan laws. Plain and simple.
Now if the alleged terrorists are captured by American forces, detained at an American prison, on American soil or an American military base--then they have the right to an American trial, under American law.
_____________________________
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." ~ 1 Peter 2:24
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 2:46:57 PM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1216
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
Avoiding insulting hyperbole might add some civility to the discussion. Fiat, people who engage in such rhetoric are not interested in civil discussion.
quote:
The fact that people seem unwilling to actually try and convict the people who have been arrested is rather disturbing. It would seem to suggest there is concern that there is not actually evidence against them. And despite how one wishes to interpret who the Constitution applies to and who it doesn't, I would have thought the right to be tried and convicted, rather than simply jailed indefinitely, was a fairly basic human right. Well, it used to be. Especially when we were fighting the "war" agains communism, we used to just vilify the Russians for doing the same thing to people.
See the thing is, ya can't claim high moral ground if you don't take the high moral road. Which is fine, as long as you're honest about it. But what I see and hear is a lot of people still claiming the high moral ground but more than willing to descend to the level of the terrorists we are supposedly fighting. ...sigh...
quote:
The fact that people seem unwilling to actually try and convict the people who have been arrested is rather disturbing. Exactly. They act like we're just going to let everyone go free and stay in the U.S. LOL, no one wants that. We just want them charged and tried. It seriously does suggest that there is great fear that there is no evidence to prove anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
