RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right

RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

PhunkD -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:33:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam They are not American citizens, and as they are not, they are not guaranteed rights under our Constitution.... I understand that that is your position, but I don't understand why. I cannot find it in the constitution. Is it in there somewhere?

Jhud -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:35:53 PM)
quote: If they were captured on a field of battle during a war, they would be prisoners of war and subject to those rules. Bush decided that they are not. You are confusing 'soldiers captured on a field of battle' with 'terrorists captured on a field of battle' quote: A captured person still has rights. It is still wrong to kill a person that is not a threat to you, even in war, even if it is legally inconvenient to capture them. They aren't killing them; but now the will start dying, and that is this court and the left's fault. quote: Regardless, we need to make our decisions based on what is right, and what our laws say--not on what is convenient. It has nothing to do with 'convenience' - it has to do with preventing more deaths, and this causes more deaths.

rcjames -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:35:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames No attacks on US soil since 9/11; the administration is doing something right. 4,000 American casualties in Iraq, not counting US citizens killed or wounded in Iraq. I do not call that success. 4000 casualties fighting the terrorist in Irag with trained volunteers is much better than untold civilians dead in our streets when the terrorist bring the fight here instead of Iraq. You liberals don't seem to get it. A terrorist trains to kill the great satan (americans) and now goes to Iraq to complete their mission. If the Americans are brought home before victory in the WOT, then the terrorist will still train to kill the great satan (Americans), but they will come here to our homeland to do it. Are you really ready for car bombs at Main aand 4th St. in your home town. If we elect Obamb and he wholesale quits Iraq; it will happen. Thanks RC

rcjames -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:39:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PhunkD If they were captured on a field of battle during a war, they would be prisoners of war and subject to those rules. Bush decided that they are not. I would encourage you to read the Geneva Convention rulse as to who is a prisoner of war and who is not. You are sorely mistaken. Thsnks RC

PhunkD -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:40:52 PM)
quote: It has nothing to do with 'convenience' - it has to do with preventing more deaths, and this causes more deaths. How?

PhunkD -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:42:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames quote: ORIGINAL: PhunkD If they were captured on a field of battle during a war, they would be prisoners of war and subject to those rules. Bush decided that they are not. I would encourage you to read the Geneva Convention rulse as to who is a prisoner of war and who is not. You are sorely mistaken. Thsnks RC If they are not prisoners of war than they are individual citizens. They would be subject to criminal law and not international law.

colliefan -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:45:23 PM)
quote: What's your probable cause officer for stopping me and shining a flashlight in my family's and my face! You're driving a car! I didn't know that very fact made me suspicious. To curb DWIs the police can announce in advance they will ve conducting checkpoints. They have the right to shine a flashlight in your face to see if you are under the influence.

colliefan -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:49:44 PM)
quote: If there's evidence that someone at Guantanamo tried to annihilate your country, it ought to be a fairly simple matter to try them, convict them on that evidence, and make sure they'll never again be in a position to attempt to do so. No one, including the Supreme Court, has denied the U.S. government the power to follow this process. This is a MILITARY matter and not a civilian one. Here in NC we had a case of a marine who killed his wife, tried to burn the body, and fled to Mexico. What venue should the slime be tried under: military or civilian? The answer is civil, because the crime took place off base.

colliefan -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:52:01 PM)
quote: 4,000 American casualties in Iraq, not counting US citizens killed or wounded in Iraq. I do not call that success 2.000 killed in TRAINING for the D-day invasion. Many more killed in the invasion itself.

PhunkD -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:54:11 PM)
The court didn't say the military couldn't try them--it just said that SOMEBODY has to charge them/try them. A person cannot be held indefinitely.

colliefan -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:54:25 PM)
quote: Thomas and Roberts. Two intellectual giants so Darth Vader Ginsger is one?

colliefan -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:56:34 PM)
quote: Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't conservatism supposed to be about less government power? This is a time of WAR

PhunkD -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:58:07 PM)
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 . . .

colliefan -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 3:59:19 PM)
quote: Most of these people were noncombatants and posed no particular threat. Then why were they captured on the BATTLEFIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PhunkD -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:04:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colliefan quote: Most of these people were noncombatants and posed no particular threat. Then why were they captured on the BATTLEFIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because in the war on terror we have declared the whole world a battlefield? Oh, I'm sorry. I meant to say "a BATTLEFIELD!!!!!!!!"

colliefan -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:05:09 PM)
quote: If they are not prisoners of war than they are individual citizens. They would be subject to criminal law and not international law. How on God's green earth can they be citizens of the US.. I guess you are an example of the complete failure of our educational system.

colliefan -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:06:53 PM)
quote: Because in the war on terror we have declared the whole world a battlefield? The terrorists have made it one. Not us!

PhunkD -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:07:03 PM)
I did not say they were US citizens. They are citizens of some other country.

PhunkD -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:09:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colliefan quote: Because in the war on terror we have declared the whole world a battlefield? The terrorists have made it one. Not us! so by your logic, anybody captured anywhere is a terrorist and has no rights.

Jhud -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:16:37 PM)
quote: How? Two reasons. The first is that as much as we restrain ourselves to comply with legal wrangling that have nothing to do with the war, we limit our ability to actually fight, capture, and kill the enemy. The other reason is that a Commander and Chief who wanted to avoid such wrangling for the sake of effectively fighting this war would simply order that no prisoners be taken, and that all captives be turned over to trusted local authorities (who will do much worse to them than anything that has happened at Gitmo) or they will simply ask for the local authorities to to help capture and kill terrorists, and reward them whether such people are dead or alive. In either case our intelligence gathering will diminish precipitously - and more people will die as a result.

cow451 -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:25:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: How? Two reasons. The first is that as much as we restrain ourselves to comply with legal wrangling that have nothing to do with the war, we limit our ability to actually fight, capture, and kill the enemy. The other reason is that a Commander and Chief who wanted to avoid such wrangling for the sake of effectively fighting this war would simply order that no prisoners be taken, and that all captives be turned over to trusted local authorities (who will do much worse to them than anything that has happened at Gitmo) or they will simply ask for the local authorities to to help capture and kill terrorists, and reward them whether such people are dead or alive. In either case our intelligence gathering will diminish precipitously - and more people will die as a result. Apparently the old way did nothing to enhance intelligence gathering or we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I think you are fear-mongering. The only change will be that going forward we won't be able to lock anybody indefinitely without answering to anyone. President cowboy set the WOT back years with the kind of thinking you propose. If we can't set up a system, we aren't any better than the terrorists.

Conundrum -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:26:02 PM)
quote: That being said, I also believe that the detainees do NOT have the same rights as American citizens. They are not POW's and they are not citizens, they are terrorists. This classification is a relatively new phenomenon, the past 40 years or so. IMO, terrorists do not have ANY rights. They forfeited any rights they may have had when they decided to kill unarmed, innocent people. Can you state unequivocally that 100% of the people at Gitmo are terrorists? How do you know? What about those that are innocent but detained for years? First, prove they're terrorists. THEN punish them. Doing it the other way around is insane. quote: You don't 'charge' people captured on a field of battle during a war. You kill them or capture them - those are your choices, which do you prefer? First, prove to me that all these people were captured on a field of battle during a war. PhunkD - I'm with you. And the funny thing is, I'm almost as conservative as they come. [8\|]

jkdjr25 -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:41:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colliefan quote: Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't conservatism supposed to be about less government power? This is a time of WAR Which does not negate the rule of law OR morality! What part of that don't you understand?

PhunkD -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:41:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: How? Two reasons. The first is that as much as we restrain ourselves to comply with legal wrangling that have nothing to do with the war, we limit our ability to actually fight, capture, and kill the enemy. The other reason is that a Commander and Chief who wanted to avoid such wrangling for the sake of effectively fighting this war would simply order that no prisoners be taken, and that all captives be turned over to trusted local authorities (who will do much worse to them than anything that has happened at Gitmo) or they will simply ask for the local authorities to to help capture and kill terrorists, and reward them whether such people are dead or alive. In either case our intelligence gathering will diminish precipitously - and more people will die as a result. I have no problem with our efforts being limited by the law. In response to the other reason, it is the commander in chief's (illegal) choices that would lead to more people dieing.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:43:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud In either case our intelligence gathering will diminish precipitously - and more people will die as a result. It isn't intelligence-gathering, Jhud; it is confession-gathering. Coercing confessions out of scapegoats does not save lives.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI