The Road to hell...

ITE..., some will think the end of habeas corpus is a good thing until gun owners are considered terrorists.

badbob
 
The same law has applied to the US Military and Courts Martial for a very long time...

It works under those specific conditions...

Habeas Corpus is for the people of the US...
It has never, and will never, apply to our enemies. :rolleyes:
some will think the end of habeas corpus is a good thing until gun owners are considered terrorists
Click to expand...
Yes, badbob
There is no arguing that point... We must be vigilant... however, not allow the enemies of the US to use our Habeas Corpus RIGHTS to secure their freedom to deprive us of those same rights...
 
I can't believe we are living in a day and age where people here think that foreign individuals, much less those that are waging war against us, should be granted the protections afforded to US citizens.

As long as the government gives due process et al to those entitled to it, they can violate the hell out of everyone elses rights as far as I'm concerned. There ain't nothing in the constitution granting a iranian/syrian/jordanian national any rights that must be respected by our government.

Pick up a civics book why don't you.:rolleyes:
 
however, not allow the enemies of the US to use our Habeas Corpus RIGHTS to secure their freedom to deprive us of those same rights...
Click to expand...

Why can I hear an anti-gunner saying that about us one day. We're supposed to operate within decency and law, even and especially when those we're dealing with would not grant us the same. I'm not advocating releasing everyone outta gitmo but I am in favor of either charging them or actually doing something with them other than sticking them in limbo until the next administration does something about them. To do what we've been doing just seems wrong and to justify it as "oh well they're not american" seems equally wrong.

Karma's a beach. And this one WILL come back to bite us.
 
badbob is exactly correct.

"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions,"
Click to expand...

Does anyone like this state of affairs, given that the next potus could be gun-hating Hillary?
 
Wow... literally none of you have any understanding of this issue.

On that same note however, if we do ever capture Osama, I better hear you boys screaming loud and clear that he should get a fair trial, an aclu appointed lawyer and a jury of his peers.
 
And on the other end of the spectrum I would suppose you would advocate a private military tribunal using evidence obtained by torture and hearsay before a public execution? What makes us any more wrong than you?
 
What makes us any more wrong than you?
Click to expand...


Ummm.... because the constitution doesn't prohibit the government from doing those things to non-citizens.

If you want to argue from a moral standpoint that's one thing, but legally this is ridiculous.
 
Where religious extremism leads to terrorism, I'm a firm believer of complete extermination. If their religious belief is to kill everyone who doesn't see the way they do, they are a threat to all civilization everywhere. Trial? Why? To tell them they're wrong? Because it's the "right" thing to do? This isn't a civil liberties uprising against oppressive powers that they are engaging in whenever someone is attacked, bombed, and innocent people living peaceful lives in their OWN parts of the world are killed. It's Jihad. If someone has connection to terrorism, exterminate them immediately.
 
STAGE 2 said:
I can't believe we are living in a day and age where people here think that foreign individuals, much less those that are waging war against us, should be granted the protections afforded to US citizens.
Click to expand...

Liberals do!

In fact, liberals think these "foreign individuals" (read 'enemy terrorists') should be released among us and given taxpayer-funded trials. The leftist idealology of liberals today is treasonous to democratic principles and fatal to wartime homeland security.
 
I bet Jose Padilla has an opinion on Habeas Corpus that is somewhat more grounded than the lofty opinions I'm reading here.
 
I don't fully understand WHY it "seems wrong". Non-uniformed enemy combatants are caught under arms on the battlefield fighting Americans and our allies. They are being held in detention facilities, when precedence has determined they could be executed. What the hell is so wrong about keeping them under lock and key instead of a)returning them so they can try to kill more Americans, or 2) execute them?

Despite mis-guided efforts to change or re-intepret the laws governing all this, it is plainly there how these enemies are to be treated. Besides it being legal, I also don't get feeling sorry for those hell bent on trying to kill us - who would gladly kill YOU. Screw them.
 
Ummm.... because the constitution doesn't prohibit the government from doing those things to non-citizens.
Click to expand...

If the Constitution "doesn't prohibit the government from doing those things to non-citizens" why is there legislation, now laws, to do away with habeas corpus?:confused:

badbob
 
Because the same people that like to read out certian amendments dealing with arms like to read in things like constitutional protections for non-citizen terrorists.

The better question to ask would be that if the constitution really did grant habeas rights to non-citizens, how could an act of congress take it away.
 
We're supposed to operate within decency and law, even and especially when those we're dealing with would not grant us the same.
Click to expand...
A truly pleasant sentiment, and emotionally derived...

This kind of sentiment MUST be negotiated from a position of strength...

We should temper out thoughts with emotion...
and NOT think with our hearts! :cool:
 
As long as the government gives due process et al to those entitled to it, they can violate the hell out of everyone elses rights as far as I'm concerned. There ain't nothing in the constitution granting a iranian/syrian/jordanian national any rights that must be respected by our government.
Click to expand...
We are not at war with Iran, Syria, or Jordan. We are at war with terror.

What are we supposed to do when we pick up someone "on the battlefield" (which means basically, anywhere, anywhen, under marginally suspicious circumstances), and that person turns out to have a French, British, Canadian, or Brazilian passport? Don't you think those countries are going to want some say in what happens to their citizens? What if the "enemy combatant" has a U.S. passport? Are his rights forfeit simply because he was "on the battlefield?" This "battlefield" garbage is hilarious. Baghdad is a battlefield. I suppose that means anyone visiting Baghdad is risking giving up all their rights if the U.S. suspects them of terrorism?

Anyone who's been half-awake during the past five years should know that according to our current executive High Clown, "enemy combatants" are not limited to foreign citizens picked up "on the battlefield." U.S. citizens picked up "on the battlefield" also qualify, as do U.S. citizens picked up in the U.S. As do dual Canadian/Syrian citizens unlucky enough to be routed through the U.S. on the way back to Canada.
 
Did you hear Chertoff?

He was talking about the Internet enabling "homegrown terrorists" to build bombs etc. Home grown means us, citizens that have a different opinion and use the 1st amendment to voice it. You bet they listen to political forums to find the "dissenters". so they "label " you a terrorist for exposing their corruptness and off you go. This is a move of desperation to protect themselves from war crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors after we all find out, and more are every day. The bill of rights got chopped up today. Now if someone gets caught in the act of building say a D/D to harm us, there are already laws on the books for that, and could of been enhanced. My friend from Germany told me that this is just how the Nazis labeled dissenting people before they dis-armed them and took them off to the camps. And Bill O'liely gets to choose who they are. For me, this is the line in the sand. The 1st, 2nd, 4th , 5th and 14th are one the way out too IF they have their way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top