No support for idiots supporting terrorists

[SmarterthanYou]

I understand your point and sympathize....its a minor dilemma .....I'd rather have these terrorists kept under lock and key and rendered harmless if they are arrested in the US.......rather than just assassinated on the whims of a president or military authority.....the lesser of two evils....our justice system is too fucked up to deal with
terrorists crimes that could put millions in danger.....

the constitution is a 'minor dilemma'??? indefinite detention without charge or trial......just to be safe?

I know at least two founding fathers who disagree with you, most likely three.

you are part of the problem, by allowing the government to ignore the constitution just to make you feel safer.

 

[NOVA]

Right here:

"...the Senate voted Tuesday to give the U.S. military first crack at holding al Qaeda operatives, even if they are captured in the U.S. and are American citizens"

American Citizens.

Caught on US soil.

Eligible to be held INDEFINITELY.

And where does it mention, "the shoddiest of probable cause" ?????

I missed that part...the actual part in question.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And where does it mention, "the shoddiest of probable cause" ?????

I missed that part...the actual part in question.

remember the patriot act? the federal government can now do things it was restricted from doing before 9/11 and all they have to do is mention that the investigation is related to terrorism.

 

[NOVA]

the constitution is a 'minor dilemma'??? indefinite detention without charge or trial......just to be safe?

I know at least two founding fathers who disagree with you, most likely three.

you are part of the problem, by allowing the government to ignore the constitution just to make you feel safer.

The Constitution didn't come from God.....and its been twisted and turned to allow a lot of bullshit to go on with little or no sensible control....
and its been used to condemn some of the very issues it was meant to protect in the past ,....no freedom is absolute.....common sense should prevail ....

Some actions endangering the lives and well being of our citizens trump the constitutional rights of its enemies....

and if only 3 of the founding fathers disagree with my views, I'm in good shape and in good company

 

[Damocles]

Do you really want the Obama to have the power to assign you the name of "combatant" and therefore have the right to hold you indefinitely and with no habeas corpus?

Seriously. Bad mojo.

 

[Alias]

IF they are traitors, they still have rights, according to the constitution.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
“ Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Where does it say they can't be arrested?

 

[Alias]

remember the patriot act? the federal government can now do things it was restricted from doing before 9/11 and all they have to do is mention that the investigation is related to terrorism.

You're assuming the Feds are gonna use terrorism as an excuse to investigate you. Let us know when this happens.

 

[apple0154]

Do I detect the Right Wing and the Libertarians warring off? Maybe this will help soothe the tension.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution didn't come from God.....and its been twisted and turned to allow a lot of bullshit to go on with little or no sensible control....
and its been used to condemn some of the very issues it was meant to protect in the past ,....no freedom is absolute.....common sense should prevail ....

Some actions endangering the lives and well being of our citizens trump the constitutional rights of its enemies....

and if only 3 of the founding fathers disagree with my views, I'm in good shape and in good company

i wouldn't get too cocky. I stopped at 3, I didn't say ONLY 3. and all of those founding fathers demanded the written word be adhered to, especially after 'common sense' was defined by the monarchy to trample their rights. 'no freedom is absolute'?? now you sound like a liberal. the framers of the constitution all believed that they would rather attend to the dangers of too much liberty, than to deal with the tyranny of too little liberty.

you are not in good company.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're assuming the Feds are gonna use terrorism as an excuse to investigate you. Let us know when this happens.

the old republican fallback of no rights have been violated unless you've experienced it directly. Do you remember a little graph I showed on here about 6 weeks ago? one that showed the number of court cases brought to federal court using the patriot act? 11 cases of terrorism and 1200 cases of violations of the controlled substance act.

you've been screaming about abuse of federal power since Obama took office, and now you think they are all gonna be totally responsible with it? Here's your sign.....

 

[NOVA]

remember the patriot act? the federal government can now do things it was restricted from doing before 9/11 and all they have to do is mention that the investigation is related to terrorism.

Right.....but that doesn't mean nor say, "the shoddiest of probable cause" does it...

 

[NOVA]

Do you really want the Obama to have the power to assign you the name of "combatant" and therefore have the right to hold you indefinitely and with no habeas corpus?

Seriously. Bad mojo.

No...I don't want him to have it....I want to have it. LOL

Get a grip....there is more to arresting someone and holding him or her than labeling them "combatant"......

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Right.....but that doesn't mean nor say, "the shoddiest of probable cause" does it...

exact words? no, of course not. but that's what it ends up being anyway. I've seen way too many people get arrested for 'interfering with an investigation'....for videotaping an arrest 30 feet away.

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. that's why the constitution was written, to restrict the government. Not to let you bozos give away all of our rights so you can feel protected.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No...I don't want him to have it....I want to have it. LOL

Get a grip....there is more to arresting someone and holding him or her than labeling them "combatant"......

In October 2001, nineteen-year-old Murat Kurnaz traveled to Pakistan to visit a madrassa. During a security check a few weeks after his arrival, he was arrested without explanation and for a bounty of $3,000, the Pakistani police sold him to U.S. forces. He was first taken to Kandahar, Afghanistan, where he was severely mistreated, and then two months later he was flown to Guantanamo as Prisoner #61. For more than 1,600 days, he was tortured and lived through hell. He was kept in a cage and endured daily interrogations, solitary confinement, and sleep deprivation. Finally, in August 2006, Kurnaz was released, with acknowledgment of his innocence.

Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo

 

[NOVA]

i wouldn't get too cocky. I stopped at 3, I didn't say ONLY 3. and all of those founding fathers demanded the written word be adhered to, especially after 'common sense' was defined by the monarchy to trample their rights. 'no freedom is absolute'?? now you sound like a liberal. the framers of the constitution all believed that they would rather attend to the dangers of too much liberty, than to deal with the tyranny of too little liberty.

you are not in good company.

"the framers of the constitution all believed that they would rather attend to the dangers of too much liberty, than to deal with the tyranny of too little liberty."

Of course....as we all do, within reason and....there is no monarchy defining common sense.....(you guys can't debate any issue without taking it the nth degree of absurdity.)

And the fact that no freedom is absolute has rightfully been the manta of liberty since the birth of the nation....remembering that old "fire in a crowded theater".....

Owning a pistol doesn't mean owning an Uzi or a bazooka.....you can hunt with a shotgun but not a machine gun, etc.....

Your right to throw a punch usually ends at end of your neighbors nose.....

 

[Rune]

No...I don't want him to have it....I want to have it. LOL

Get a grip....there is more to arresting someone and holding him or her than labeling them "combatant"......

NOT UNDER THIS LAW, YOU ASSHOLE, THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. WAKE THE FUCK UP BRAVO

 

[Rune]

Right.....but that doesn't mean nor say, "the shoddiest of probable cause" does it...

Listen moron, do you even know what constitutes probable cause?
Don't answer, since it is obvious that you don't.

 

[Damocles]

No...I don't want him to have it....I want to have it. LOL

Get a grip....there is more to arresting someone and holding him or her than labeling them "combatant"......

Not after this legislation passes. The idea that nobody could ever possibly misuse such powers is insanity.

 

[NOVA]

In October 2001, nineteen-year-old Murat Kurnaz traveled to Pakistan to visit a madrassa. During a security check a few weeks after his arrival, he was arrested without explanation and for a bounty of $3,000, the Pakistani police sold him to U.S. forces. He was first taken to Kandahar, Afghanistan, where he was severely mistreated, and then two months later he was flown to Guantanamo as Prisoner #61. For more than 1,600 days, he was tortured and lived through hell. He was kept in a cage and endured daily interrogations, solitary confinement, and sleep deprivation. Finally, in August 2006, Kurnaz was released, with acknowledgment of his innocence.

Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo

Yeah....and of course, everyone in every prison in the US is innocent and a victim of discrimination or police brutality or set up......

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Of course....as we all do, within reason

and in doing so, we hand over the power to define what 'within reason' is to an entity that desires more power over us. stupid.

and....there is no monarchy defining common sense.....(you guys can't debate any issue without taking it the nth degree of absurdity.)

monarchy was used as a direct experience of the founders. substitute whatever term you feel like and it still works out the same.

And the fact that no freedom is absolute has rightfully been the manta of liberty since the birth of the nation....remembering that old "fire in a crowded theater".....

i'm so fucking sick of people using this bullshit case as some historical reference to show rights are not absolute in direct contradiction to the words in the constitution. First off, 'no freedom is absolute' has NOT been the mantra since the birth of this nation. the case you're referring to wasn't until 1919 and it wasn't even about shouting fire in a crowded theater. It was a paraphrased statement to show a difference between two types of speech and it was a wrong headed statement at that. you can indeed yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there's a fire.

Owning a pistol doesn't mean owning an Uzi or a bazooka.....you can hunt with a shotgun but not a machine gun, etc.....

this is another worthless example. the 2nd amendment was not about hunting or target shooting. It wasn't even about protecting ones self from criminals. It was written first and foremost to keep the people as equally armed as any standing army, because the founders knew from experience that standing armies are the bane to liberty. Therefore, the only reason people are imprisoned today for owning a machine gun is because the people and the government are frightened of citizens who can fight back.

Your right to throw a punch usually ends at end of your neighbors nose.....

which doesn't mean that you get to have my hands cut off because you're afraid i'll punch you.