RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves????????

RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

Mr.Dawgfan -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/13/2008 9:01:18 AM)
Thing is that people have the September 10th 2001 mentality. Thinking we're protected by two oceans. People are lulled into thinking another terrorist attack "won't happen here". People have forgotten . There is a saying that. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

davemiller7 -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/13/2008 1:24:04 PM)
Henny, I'm sure we have committed some abuses at Gitmo and other prisons, but please don't ask us to confer the rights we have as Americans (those guaranteed by the US Constitution) upon non-Americans, especially when taken into custody in time of war. Those aliens (and their ancestors) did not shed the blood that won our freedom and our rights as Americans. They are not entitled to the safeguards provided by our constitution. They are entitled to be treated as human beings (IMHO, only because they are God's creations). -Dave quote: ORIGINAL: henny quote: ORIGINAL: lightshineon This man should have never been released, but pressure to release these man, resulted in eternal damnation for him and the murder of others. Torture is not the theme of this post, so nobody get on that soapbox. I am so sick of that, besides plenty of that stuff going on in the Bush thread, so go there please, because I do not want to hear it, and not the subject of my post. I am wanting to know what you think of this issue and the pressure to release these people to be PC, resulting in the deaths of others? What on earth does "PC" have to do with anything? The problems with Guantanamo have nothing to do with being politically correct or not, but rather with troubling legal issues (i.e. Like holding people without charge and without legal representation indefinitely -which is something people should be concerned about, liberal or conservative). This guy's actions are a shame, but they really say nothing about the rightness or wrongness of some of the legal and ethical problems with Guantanamo. A former prisoner blowing some people up doesn't diminish the need for legal protections like "habeas corpus," etc, that the Bush administration was trying to get around with Guantanamo, and I actually think by trying to do things the way they did, they ended up shooting themselves in the feet and opening the door for situations like this bomber just because there was no way that they could legally try the detainees who ended up being real criminals (like this guy). So they created a situation in which the choice was either hold them indefinitely in limbo, or let them go (and the army did end up letting a bunch go, just because they really couldn't do anything with them). Another basic problem with Guantanamo was that the army offered rewards in Afghanistan to encourage people to turn in suspected terrorists, so a lot of the people who ended up there were just people who other Afghans turned in because they had a grudge against them or because they wanted the reward money. So I think the army ended up creating a situation for itself where it really couldn't tell who were the "good" guys and who were the "bad" guys, nor could they prosecute the "bad" guys if it was needed. I've mentioned this before, but "This American Life" did a really good show on Guantanamo a year or so ago. I'd recommend that anyone who's interested in it listen (it's free on the web). They go over some of the legal issues involved and also interview a few ex-detainees from the facility who were released. Here's a link to the show and a description of it's contents: http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331

henny -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/13/2008 3:47:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 Henny, I'm sure we have committed some abuses at Gitmo and other prisons, but please don't ask us to confer the rights we have as Americans (those guaranteed by the US Constitution) upon non-Americans, especially when taken into custody in time of war. The constitution really has nothing to do with anything. Unless the person captured is an American citizen it really wouldn't apply anyway. The rights I am talking about are much more basic than the constitution. Following something as basic as habeas corpus is just common sense sort of stuff when it comes to applying any sort of human justice -in war or elsewhere-, and I really don't see why following it would be detrimental in anyway to our security. According to the Bush administration's initial policy on Gitmo prisoners they existed in a legal black hole. The army claimed it did not have to give them legal representation of any sort, nor did it have to show evidence or prove to anyone (even something like an internal war tribunal) why they were being detained, nor did it even have to acknowledge the fact that they were being detained. I don't see how anyone could not be disturbed by that. The USA is not infallible. We can make mistakes (as the many prisoners who ended up at Gitmo for really no reason other than that someone turned them in for the cash attest to -and in some cases the Army even acknowledge that they had done nothing wrong, yet they kept them anyway because they didn't know what to do with them), so I don't see how anyone could see this as a good thing. There is no reason why we can't both do what we need to protect the country and also have legal checks and balances in place to safe guard from human nature. If someone is actually a terrorist, following basic guidelines like this really wouldn't prevent our ability to detain and prosecute them.

henny -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/13/2008 4:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 especially when taken into custody in time of war. The problem with this, though, is that the Bush administration's definition of "time of war" was vague enough that it would place us all into a "time of war" indefinitely. I recognize the need to work under different rules and even limit some rights during a time of war, but if you define "Terrorism" as a war (as the administration tried to do) then it is a war that will never end, given that there will always be terrorism. Given this, any administration could basically suspend certain rights and apply wartime rules FOREVER -which, again, is something that should disturb people. I think dealing with terrorism is something that we are going to have to create new rules for that are different than the old to deal with some of these issues. We obviously need to allow the US government the capacity to do what it needs to do to protect us, but we also need to make sure that checks and balances are in place to prevent abuse of power. There's no reason why we can't do both.

lightshineon -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/13/2008 6:02:09 PM)
henny, it is true there need to be checks and balances, but these people ( terrorist) are a diffferent breed. How do you handle them, when they are willing to blow theirself up for what they believe? I am not willing as a reasonable person to blow myself up with a bomb or heaven forbid fly myself into a building in an airplane. Foreign Terrorist believe the lie so strongly, it is their identity. Our domestic terrorist are cowards, I live in Oklahoma and the Federal Building was horrible. Mcveigh is dead, by leathel injection, but, his and others evil minds still had a self-preservation mode. Foreign Terrorist, are so brainwashed, they live to kill and die, it is a different psycological make-up, than your normal person, or criminal, or even terrorist. We do not know how to deal with this mindset, I would be willing to bet, if I were a betting woman. I think it has to be trial and error in this situation.

Leslie_JnJs_mom -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/13/2008 6:42:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 Henny, I'm sure we have committed some abuses at Gitmo and other prisons, but please don't ask us to confer the rights we have as Americans (those guaranteed by the US Constitution) upon non-Americans, especially when taken into custody in time of war. Those aliens (and their ancestors) did not shed the blood that won our freedom and our rights as Americans. They are not entitled to the safeguards provided by our constitution. They are entitled to be treated as human beings (IMHO, only because they are God's creations). -Dave Great post!

lightshineon -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/13/2008 7:14:43 PM)
Yes, a very good post. quote: ORIGINAL: Leslie35 quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 Henny, I'm sure we have committed some abuses at Gitmo and other prisons, but please don't ask us to confer the rights we have as Americans (those guaranteed by the US Constitution) upon non-Americans, especially when taken into custody in time of war. Those aliens (and their ancestors) did not shed the blood that won our freedom and our rights as Americans. They are not entitled to the safeguards provided by our constitution. They are entitled to be treated as human beings (IMHO, only because they are God's creations). -Dave Great post!

davemiller7 -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/13/2008 8:01:49 PM)
The Constitution has everything to do with this! Without the Constitution, there wouldn't be a habeas corpus writ, unless we adopted some form of English law. I repeat, we have moral obligations as a Christian nation, but none legally to provide enemy combatants with our hard earned constitutional rights. -Dave quote: ORIGINAL: henny quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 Henny, I'm sure we have committed some abuses at Gitmo and other prisons, but please don't ask us to confer the rights we have as Americans (those guaranteed by the US Constitution) upon non-Americans, especially when taken into custody in time of war. The constitution really has nothing to do with anything. Unless the person captured is an American citizen it really wouldn't apply anyway. The rights I am talking about are much more basic than the constitution. Following something as basic as habeas corpus is just common sense sort of stuff when it comes to applying any sort of human justice -in war or elsewhere-, and I really don't see why following it would be detrimental in anyway to our security. According to the Bush administration's initial policy on Gitmo prisoners they existed in a legal black hole. The army claimed it did not have to give them legal representation of any sort, nor did it have to show evidence or prove to anyone (even something like an internal war tribunal) why they were being detained, nor did it even have to acknowledge the fact that they were being detained. I don't see how anyone could not be disturbed by that. The USA is not infallible. We can make mistakes (as the many prisoners who ended up at Gitmo for really no reason other than that someone turned them in for the cash attest to -and in some cases the Army even acknowledge that they had done nothing wrong, yet they kept them anyway because they didn't know what to do with them), so I don't see how anyone could see this as a good thing. There is no reason why we can't both do what we need to protect the country and also have legal checks and balances in place to safe guard from human nature. If someone is actually a terrorist, following basic guidelines like this really wouldn't prevent our ability to detain and prosecute them.

lightshineon -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/13/2008 8:03:46 PM)
This is a very good point also. quote: ORIGINAL: retro-dorx41 Thing is that people have the September 10th 2001 mentality. Thinking we're protected by two oceans. People are lulled into thinking another terrorist attack "won't happen here". People have forgotten . There is a saying that. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

davemiller7 -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/15/2008 8:30:21 PM)
Hmmmmm........... Got quiet on this forum all of a sudden. I don't hear anything, do you. [;)] -Dave quote: ORIGINAL: lightshineon This is a very good point also. quote: ORIGINAL: retro-dorx41 Thing is that people have the September 10th 2001 mentality. Thinking we're protected by two oceans. People are lulled into thinking another terrorist attack "won't happen here". People have forgotten . There is a saying that. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

lightshineon -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/15/2008 11:02:53 PM)
Selective reading. Should I have added torture and waterboarding to peak emotion, and excitment over post? Maybe I should edit it, so it can be hijacked. What do you think? Wait I heard a pin drop.[sm=flagamerican.jpg][sm=bigears.gif]

WormHeart -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/16/2008 12:48:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny [What on earth does "PC" have to do with anything? The problems with Guantanamo have nothing to do with being politically correct or not, but rather with troubling legal issues (i.e. Like holding people without charge and without legal representation indefinitely -which is something people should be concerned about, liberal or conservative). This guy's actions are a shame, but they really say nothing about the rightness or wrongness of some of the legal and ethical problems with Guantanamo. A former prisoner blowing some people up doesn't diminish the need for legal protections like "habeas corpus," etc, that the Bush administration was trying to get around with Guantanamo, and I actually think by trying to do things the way they did, they ended up shooting themselves in the feet and opening the door for situations like this bomber just because there was no way that they could legally try the detainees who ended up being real criminals (like this guy). So they created a situation in which the choice was either hold them indefinitely in limbo, or let them go (and the army did end up letting a bunch go, just because they really couldn't do anything with them). Another basic problem with Guantanamo was that the army offered rewards in Afghanistan to encourage people to turn in suspected terrorists, so a lot of the people who ended up there were just people who other Afghans turned in because they had a grudge against them or because they wanted the reward money. So I think the army ended up creating a situation for itself where it really couldn't tell who were the "good" guys and who were the "bad" guys, nor could they prosecute the "bad" guys if it was needed. Henny said it! WormHeart

WormHeart -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/16/2008 12:52:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 Henny, I'm sure we have committed some abuses at Gitmo and other prisons, but please don't ask us to confer the rights we have as Americans (those guaranteed by the US Constitution) upon non-Americans, especially when taken into custody in time of war. Those aliens (and their ancestors) did not shed the blood that won our freedom and our rights as Americans. They are not entitled to the safeguards provided by our constitution. They are entitled to be treated as human beings (IMHO, only because they are God's creations). -Dave So according to you, if an american is accused of murder, he/she should get a trial, but if a citizen of another nation is accused of murder they should be locked up forever without a trial? Is that it? WormHeart

lightshineon -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/16/2008 11:45:26 AM)
Have we been attacked again? This is a hard thing to deal with, and sometimes things have to be delt with trial and error. You first crush the cell groups, put someone in like the mob informants. If these people are released it will be a blood bath. Worm, things are not always as thet appear. quote: ORIGINAL: WormHeart quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 Henny, I'm sure we have committed some abuses at Gitmo and other prisons, but please don't ask us to confer the rights we have as Americans (those guaranteed by the US Constitution) upon non-Americans, especially when taken into custody in time of war. Those aliens (and their ancestors) did not shed the blood that won our freedom and our rights as Americans. They are not entitled to the safeguards provided by our constitution. They are entitled to be treated as human beings (IMHO, only because they are God's creations). -Dave So according to you, if an american is accused of murder, he/she should get a trial, but if a citizen of another nation is accused of murder they should be locked up forever without a trial? Is that it? WormHeart

tracydolls -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/16/2008 12:21:48 PM)
my problem with this whole "terrorist" label, is they are trying to label"gang members" terrorist, ok but in this proposal, people that wear baggy clothes can be labeled gang member and therefore terrorist. so therefore it will be americans. In the 60's Mlk would have been put on list. Who gets to label, where's the defintion? Is it every person that is Moslem? how do you know what a terrorist is? I have yet to see Iraqi military uniforms. As humans we all deserve a day in court. the hijackers died with the planes, who are the 600 they are holding, and why is it in Cuba, a country we don't like?

davemiller7 -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/16/2008 1:41:06 PM)
Only an American, arrested in America or its possessions (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) for criminal activities, is entitled to the protections guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. If, for instance, you, come over here and try to blow up things in America in an act of war, you should not be entitled to our rights. The act of war term is important. Americans arrested for commiting acts of war should not be protected either. People have to recognize the difference between acts of war and criminal activities such as murder, robbery, arson, etc. -Dave quote: ORIGINAL: WormHeart quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 Henny, I'm sure we have committed some abuses at Gitmo and other prisons, but please don't ask us to confer the rights we have as Americans (those guaranteed by the US Constitution) upon non-Americans, especially when taken into custody in time of war. Those aliens (and their ancestors) did not shed the blood that won our freedom and our rights as Americans. They are not entitled to the safeguards provided by our constitution. They are entitled to be treated as human beings (IMHO, only because they are God's creations). -Dave So according to you, if an american is accused of murder, he/she should get a trial, but if a citizen of another nation is accused of murder they should be locked up forever without a trial? Is that it? WormHeart

tracydolls -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/16/2008 1:50:07 PM)
would your reply apply to like those american soldiers that went to Somilia and were drug thru streets. We should write that off like that?

radiorobert -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/16/2008 5:35:48 PM)
The United States of America is the LIGHT of the world in a nationalistic political sense. It has given rise to all forms of liberty and justice that we know in modern times. Our system was derived from a system of judeo-Chritian ethics and civil law. The reason it was created is b/c the rest of the world was a very dark place. It is the best form of government both politically and culturally that fallen sinful human beings have ever come up with. To make statements such as 'who are we to judge'? or 'what gives us the authority'? is to present a question that doesn't make any sense as an American. It would be like asking an Iranian or an Isreali the same question in their country. I have no reply for people questioning our own sovereignty b/c I cannot fathom life without these protections and freedoms. I also cannot fathom life without standing up for them or making sure we are safe. If you believe that we are not the only ones who are entitled to exclusive rights in our own country, but that others should have the same b/c of some unspoken worldwide right to humanity, I must say that it does not appear the United States of America is the right country for you to live in. We here belive we have the best in the world. We care about our loved ones, our security, our lives, our beliefs and our ability to have freedom that is also guaranteed by the rule of law, which only limits them as much as is necessary to not deprive another person of the same freedoms. We also belive it is necessary to do what we must to ensure those freedoms can be passed on. God (Christ) expects us as believers to worship him in an orderly fashion, to conduct our lives in an orderly fashion and to structure our governments seperate from one another according to political systems in an orderly fashion. (whether believer or non-believer.) This means we are not obligated to live under a one world system of ethics outside of what Jesus Christ (God) has laid down for us in scripture.

davemiller7 -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/16/2008 9:00:39 PM)
Excellent post, Robert. -Dave quote: ORIGINAL: radiorobert The United States of America is the LIGHT of the world in a nationalistic political sense. It has given rise to all forms of liberty and justice that we know in modern times. Our system was derived from a system of judeo-Chritian ethics and civil law. The reason it was created is b/c the rest of the world was a very dark place. It is the best form of government both politically and culturally that fallen sinful human beings have ever come up with. To make statements such as 'who are we to judge'? or 'what gives us the authority'? is to present a question that doesn't make any sense as an American. It would be like asking an Iranian or an Isreali the same question in their country. I have no reply for people questioning our own sovereignty b/c I cannot fathom life without these protections and freedoms. I also cannot fathom life without standing up for them or making sure we are safe. If you believe that we are not the only ones who are entitled to exclusive rights in our own country, but that others should have the same b/c of some unspoken worldwide right to humanity, I must say that it does not appear the United States of America is the right country for you to live in. We here belive we have the best in the world. We care about our loved ones, our security, our lives, our beliefs and our ability to have freedom that is also guaranteed by the rule of law, which only limits them as much as is necessary to not deprive another person of the same freedoms. We also belive it is necessary to do what we must to ensure those freedoms can be passed on. God (Christ) expects us as believers to worship him in an orderly fashion, to conduct our lives in an orderly fashion and to structure our governments seperate from one another according to political systems in an orderly fashion. (whether believer or non-believer.) This means we are not obligated to live under a one world system of ethics outside of what Jesus Christ (God) has laid down for us in scripture.

tracydolls -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/16/2008 10:17:43 PM)
quote: The United States of America is the LIGHT of the world in a nationalistic political sense. that's what you say. This gov't is corrupt, shady and greedy. quote: It has given rise to all forms of liberty and justice that we know in modern times. Our system was derived from a system of judeo-Chritian ethics and civil law. they gave Israel --Hamas, thru our democracy and free elections. quote: The reason it was created is b/c the rest of the world was a very dark place. It is the best form of government both politically and culturally that fallen sinful human beings have ever come up with . It was founded on the backs of others, stolen from others. quote: To make statements such as 'who are we to judge'? or 'what gives us the authority'? is to present a question that doesn't make any sense as an American. It would be like asking an Iranian or an Isreali the same question in their country. I just asked who is making the rules. I don't trust them. quote: I have no reply for people questioning our own sovereignty b/c I cannot fathom life without these protections and freedoms. then why did you reply? quote: I also cannot fathom life without standing up for them or making sure we are safe. I don't feel safe here in US. Can this gov't stop the drugs and all the violence that comes with that? Keep a dope dealer from shooting? Can this gov't stop racists from killing? Can this gov't stop serial killers, or rapers, random nuts? Can it stop terrorists that are determined to blow something up? Of course not. quote: If you believe that we are not the only ones who are entitled to exclusive rights in our own country, but that others should have the same b/c of some unspoken worldwide right to humanity, I must say that it does not appear the United States of America is the right country for you to live in. so everyone does not deserve human rights? Is that American, to deny human rights, seems contradictory! Hypocrtites which is what I think we are. quote: We here belive we have the best in the world. the best what? quote: We care about our loved ones, our security, our lives, our beliefs and our ability to have freedom that is also guaranteed by the rule of law, which only limits them as much as is necessary to not deprive another person of the same freedoms. We also belive it is necessary to do what we must to ensure those freedoms can be passed on. so no other human in the world wants same basic rights. love, security, life and freedom? quote: God (Christ) expects us as believers to worship him in an orderly fashion, to conduct our lives in an orderly fashion and to structure our governments seperate from one another according to political systems in an orderly fashion. (whether believer or non-believer.) This means we are not obligated to live under a one world system of ethics outside of what Jesus Christ (God) has laid down for us in scripture. What Scripture says lock people up, torture them, with no hearings?

henny -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/17/2008 7:57:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 The Constitution has everything to do with this! Without the Constitution, there wouldn't be a habeas corpus writ, unless we adopted some form of English law. I repeat, we have moral obligations as a Christian nation, but none legally to provide enemy combatants with our hard earned constitutional rights. Habeas corpus predates the constitution. Although you are right in that there really is nothing that would make us apply it in this case, except for the Geneva convention (Although even that only is enforcable only if we agree to enforce it, and the Administration opted out of that in the cases of terrorists, so even that doesn't technically apply). But simply because we don't have to apply it doesn't mean we shouldn't. I'm not sure why you wouldn't want habeus corpus to apply in this case. I don't think it would limit our ability to prosecute the ones who deserve it, just as it would go a short way in helping us ensure that we don't end up detaining those who are innocent. I'm not arguing that terrorists should have all of the same rights gauranteed to citizens under the constititution (I haven't suggested anything of the sort, actually), I merely disagree with the administration's original claim that it could do what it wanted with the prisoners without answering to anyone legally, justifying to anyone (even an agency within the military) why they were being held, or giving the prisoners any means of appeal. As I said before, I don't see how anyone, liberal or conservative, would not find this disturbing, just because there's huge potential for the abuse of power here. Just as it creates an environment where mistakes can't be corrected if they are made (and again, I point to the examples of prisoners at Gitmo who were held, sometimes for a period of years, and sometimes for a period even after the army had already determined they were innocent, and then released with no explaination). The supreme court actually ended up ruling against the Bush administration on this. They said that while the Geneva convention does not apply, the administration still had to do certain basic things (which includes implementing some form of habeas corpus) to ensure that the prisoners do not fall off the map, legally speaking. I don't know what your definition of "moral obligation as a Christian nation" is, but I would think it would include treating our enemies in a "just" and "humane" manner, which would include allowing them some form of recourse if we (as humans) make a mistake and detain someone who is innocent. I don't think the Bush administration's original policy on Gitmo did any of this.

davemiller7 -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/17/2008 2:43:04 PM)
The US is not perfect. I don't know of anyone who thinks it is. But....... can you name any other country that has done anywhere near as much to promote peace, justice, mercy and freedom in the world? We had a saying when all the demonstrations were going on in the 60s and 70s: "America, love it or leave it." -Dave quote: ORIGINAL: tracydolls quote: The United States of America is the LIGHT of the world in a nationalistic political sense. that's what you say. This gov't is corrupt, shady and greedy. quote: It has given rise to all forms of liberty and justice that we know in modern times. Our system was derived from a system of judeo-Chritian ethics and civil law. they gave Israel --Hamas, thru our democracy and free elections. quote: The reason it was created is b/c the rest of the world was a very dark place. It is the best form of government both politically and culturally that fallen sinful human beings have ever come up with . It was founded on the backs of others, stolen from others. quote: To make statements such as 'who are we to judge'? or 'what gives us the authority'? is to present a question that doesn't make any sense as an American. It would be like asking an Iranian or an Isreali the same question in their country. I just asked who is making the rules. I don't trust them. quote: I have no reply for people questioning our own sovereignty b/c I cannot fathom life without these protections and freedoms. then why did you reply? quote: I also cannot fathom life without standing up for them or making sure we are safe. I don't feel safe here in US. Can this gov't stop the drugs and all the violence that comes with that? Keep a dope dealer from shooting? Can this gov't stop racists from killing? Can this gov't stop serial killers, or rapers, random nuts? Can it stop terrorists that are determined to blow something up? Of course not. quote: If you believe that we are not the only ones who are entitled to exclusive rights in our own country, but that others should have the same b/c of some unspoken worldwide right to humanity, I must say that it does not appear the United States of America is the right country for you to live in. so everyone does not deserve human rights? Is that American, to deny human rights, seems contradictory! Hypocrtites which is what I think we are. quote: We here belive we have the best in the world. the best what? quote: We care about our loved ones, our security, our lives, our beliefs and our ability to have freedom that is also guaranteed by the rule of law, which only limits them as much as is necessary to not deprive another person of the same freedoms. We also belive it is necessary to do what we must to ensure those freedoms can be passed on. so no other human in the world wants same basic rights. love, security, life and freedom? quote: God (Christ) expects us as believers to worship him in an orderly fashion, to conduct our lives in an orderly fashion and to structure our governments seperate from one another according to political systems in an orderly fashion. (whether believer or non-believer.) This means we are not obligated to live under a one world system of ethics outside of what Jesus Christ (God) has laid down for us in scripture. What Scripture says lock people up, torture them, with no hearings?

WormHeart -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/17/2008 5:51:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 Only an American, arrested in America or its possessions (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) for criminal activities, is entitled to the protections guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. If, for instance, you, come over here and try to blow up things in America in an act of war, you should not be entitled to our rights. Wrong scenario. What you seem to be advocating is this: I visit your great nation. Someone takes a grudge toward me - maybe he's girlfriend takes an interest in me, pehaps he just dislikes my political views - in any event he claim I plan to perform a terroist attack on the US. And so - being a non-US-citizen - I get thrown into jail without a trail - without a lawyer - without any real possibility to defend myself. And since the rights are only for US-citizens, I can face life in some secret prison. Is that it? How can you make sure you got the right guy / girl without a trial? WormHeart

lightshineon -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/17/2008 11:24:40 PM)
Ok, how do you suggest we treat terorist, they are a different breed, as I said than domestic Terrorist. They are so brainwashed they blow themselves up. They are insane, if looking at the definition of insanity. You cannot deal with them as you can with even the most hardened criminal. Trust me, on this I know it from personal experience. They will kill if realesed in mass groups. Look stand up for them,a ndthey will behead or cut your head off anyway. I love my God, my family, and my country. Leave the ones who know what they are doing, to know what to do. You are not there, and do not know what they are dealing with. I said some of it maybe trial and error, but we are not just a bunch of criminals ourselfs wishing to torment people of the Middle East.

tracydolls -> RE: Failing to protect those who can't protect themselves???????? (5/19/2008 12:45:01 PM)
quote: they are a different breed, They are humans, I would treat them as such. As I would want to be treated. As a human. With the Love of Jesus.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI