Political Crossfire Forums

[JLB]

Well, it appears that treason is in season now that the Democrats feel they don't have to lie about who they really are anymore.

Senator Dodd has announced his new Terrorists Bill of Rights to insure that they all get ACLU lawyers after they murder innocent people, even though they are not citizens of the US, nor are they wearing military uniforms.

At least America has two years to see the Democrats for what they really are before banishing them from power for good. :tu:



From his own web site:




Senator Chris Dodd (D) Al Qaeda

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3661

November 16, 2006

Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.

“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”



The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:



Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees

Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants

Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight

Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.



"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
---- Abraham Lincoln

[mr.snruB]

Sounds like a good bill to me.

[agentkgb]

mr.snruB wrote: Sounds like a good bill to me.
Agreed.

[ontheyslay]

I never understood why some people think it is so bad to give terrorists legal rights. What is the difference if they are a terrorist or if they are an american citizens who blows up a building?

Why can we not give these people a fair trial, or any other legal rights a suspected criminal would have? Just because they killed Americans? We are supposed to be spreading democracy, but I guess the values of a democracy only apply to Americans.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

[mr.snruB]

ontheyslay wrote: I never understood why some people think it is so bad to give terrorists legal rights. What is the difference if they are a terrorist or if they are an american citizens who blows up a building?

Why can we not give these people a fair trial, or any other legal rights a suspected criminal would have? Just because they killed Americans? We are supposed to be spreading democracy, but I guess the values of a democracy only apply to Americans.

I see an alleged terrorist as the same as an alleged murderer over here. Why give murderers rights but not terrorists? What I don't like about this whole deal is that if you're accused of being a terrorist who was involved in stuff, even if you weren't, you're screwed because you have no rights

[Clarino]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.



I thought the Bill of Rights only covered Americans.

I know I don't have the right to keep and bear arms. Well, nothing significant anyway.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Clarino wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.



I thought the Bill of Rights only covered Americans.

I know I don't have the right to keep and bear arms. Well, nothing significant anyway.

The bill of rights prevents congress from passing laws against innate rights.

Thus it covers eveyone, it dosent afford americans rights, it simple prevents congress from passing laws against rights. As its not spesific as to whoms rights congress can't pass laws against, (and considing them messy nature of what being a citizen can mean in the U.S past and present) it covers eveyone, absoltely eveyone.

[Clarino]

It's my opinion that a right isn't ever innate. Rights are granted by those in power.

[Melchior]

JLB wrote: Well, it appears that treason is in season now that the Democrats feel they don't have to lie about who they really are anymore.

Senator Dodd has announced his new Terrorists Bill of Rights to insure that they all get ACLU lawyers after they murder innocent people, even though they are not citizens of the US, nor are they wearing military uniforms.

So Arabs that murder innocent people do not have the right to a fair trial, but Americans that murder innocent people are? :lol:

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

JLB wrote: At least America has two years to see the Democrats for what they really are before banishing them from power for good. :tu:

What? A party that believes all men are created equal, as are all killers?

There is a lot of crap you can rip on the Democrats for, this isn't one of them.

[Ozzone]

Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

I'm sorry, but this item is total bs. If it had said torture, with a clear definition of what constitutes torture, then it might have a chance, but COERCION?

God the appeasers are sickening.

It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

[Melchior]

Clarino wrote: It's my opinion that a right isn't ever innate. Rights are granted by those in power.

No, you are describing a privilege.

Ozzone wrote: Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

I'm sorry, but this item is total bs. If it had said torture, with a clear definition of what constitutes torture, then it might have a chance, but COERCION?

God the appeasers are sickening.

It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

Whoa, slow down.

What does coercion mean to you? Because if you looked the word up in a dictionary you would find terms like "violence" and "abuse of power" in the description.

Coercion is the term used to describe the limits people have with their own rights in regards to everyone else.

[The American]

JLB wrote: Well, it appears that treason is in season now that the Democrats feel they don't have to lie about who they really are anymore.

Senator Dodd has announced his new Terrorists Bill of Rights to insure that they all get ACLU lawyers after they murder innocent people, even though they are not citizens of the US, nor are they wearing military uniforms.

At least America has two years to see the Democrats for what they really are before banishing them from power for good. :tu:



From his own web site:




Senator Chris Dodd (D) Al Qaeda

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3661

November 16, 2006

Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.

“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”



The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:



Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees

Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants

Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight

Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.



"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
---- Abraham Lincoln

Where are the lollipops? Surely they do not get rights without lollipops? What better way to reward animals from killing innocence?

:wink:

We warned and have been warned this was coming. Seems as though Democratic politicians have that desire for blood on their hands. So be it. It is a high price to pay for playing politics with war. I think they live in the wrong country. The bill will not make it past the President. They will not have enough support to override. The exposure to heat was fine though.

:wink:

Trig.

[homerjay_s]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Clarino wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveyone on the planet is allready covered by the bill of rights.

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.



I thought the Bill of Rights only covered Americans.

I know I don't have the right to keep and bear arms. Well, nothing significant anyway.

The bill of rights prevents congress from passing laws against innate rights.

Thus it covers eveyone, it dosent afford americans rights, it simple prevents congress from passing laws against rights. As its not spesific as to whoms rights congress can't pass laws against, (and considing them messy nature of what being a citizen can mean in the U.S past and present) it covers eveyone, absoltely eveyone.

I would suggest that the current atmosphere fostered by the sitting executive adminstration which has shown a blatant disregard for habeas corpus laws and a penchant for authorizing interrogation techniques with dubious legality does unfortunately make the move to forward this type of legislation understandable.

[Ozzone]

Melchior wrote: Ozzone wrote: Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

I'm sorry, but this item is total bs. If it had said torture, with a clear definition of what constitutes torture, then it might have a chance, but COERCION?

God the appeasers are sickening.

It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

Whoa, slow down.

What does coercion mean to you? Because if you looked the word up in a dictionary you would find terms like "violence" and "abuse of power" in the description.

It doesn't mean the same thing as torture. I have no problem with our government using coercion on enemies of the state.

Quote: Coercion is the term used to describe the limits people have with their own rights in regards to everyone else.

Not really, but I'll say that your definition is good enough for debate purposes. I've actually looked them both up.

Torture can be perceived as coercion (because it is the act of using force or power over someone), but in the legal definition there is a big difference.

Again, I have no problem limiting their rights. They are terrorists. They gave up their rights as far as I am concerned. Especially if they are foreign nationals attempting to commit acts of terrorism against Americans.

[homerjay_s]

Ozzone wrote: Melchior wrote: Ozzone wrote: Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

I'm sorry, but this item is total bs. If it had said torture, with a clear definition of what constitutes torture, then it might have a chance, but COERCION?

God the appeasers are sickening.

It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

Whoa, slow down.

What does coercion mean to you? Because if you looked the word up in a dictionary you would find terms like "violence" and "abuse of power" in the description.

It doesn't mean the same thing as torture. I have no problem with our government using coercion on enemies of the state.

Quote: Coercion is the term used to describe the limits people have with their own rights in regards to everyone else.

Not really, but I'll say that your definition is good enough for debate purposes. I've actually looked them both up.

Torture can be perceived as coercion (because it is the act of using force or power over someone), but in the legal definition there is a big difference.

Again, I have no problem limiting their rights. They are terrorists. They gave up their rights as far as I am concerned. Especially if they are foreign nationals attempting to commit acts of terrorism against Americans.

You want to limit the rights of "suspected" terrorists. This isn't about people that have already been tried and convicted of crimes.

Why are the Republicans in favor of withholding rights to alleged criminals? Aren't you the same people that wanted to treat Abramoff innocent until proven rediculously guilty?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Clarino wrote: It's my opinion that a right isn't ever innate. Rights are granted by those in power.

To briefly touch on this, rights are granted by the existance of the 'ego' in a meta physical sense, simply by existing you have certain rights.

To suggest that all rights come from a social contract, means that the right to life may only exist so long as society or the ruler wishes it. How can any one take presidence over another?

[mr.snruB]

Ozzone wrote:
It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

I'd say that that's a very good idea

[Swampfox.f]

mr.snruB wrote: Sounds like a good bill to me.

It is a step in the right direction, they need to narrow the definition of terrorist more. WTF is an unlawful combatant? So we could aid dictators in defending them from the citizens of their countries who are trying to rebel and establish a better government for themselves?

So fidel was an unlawful combatant until he gained power?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Ozzone wrote: Melchior wrote: Ozzone wrote: Quote: Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

I'm sorry, but this item is total bs. If it had said torture, with a clear definition of what constitutes torture, then it might have a chance, but COERCION?

God the appeasers are sickening.

It's clear they want to strip as much power away from the President, a.k.a. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF as they can, EVEN IN WARTIME.

Whoa, slow down.

What does coercion mean to you? Because if you looked the word up in a dictionary you would find terms like "violence" and "abuse of power" in the description.

It doesn't mean the same thing as torture. I have no problem with our government using coercion on enemies of the state.

Quote: Coercion is the term used to describe the limits people have with their own rights in regards to everyone else.

Not really, but I'll say that your definition is good enough for debate purposes. I've actually looked them both up.

Torture can be perceived as coercion (because it is the act of using force or power over someone), but in the legal definition there is a big difference.

Again, I have no problem limiting their rights. They are terrorists. They gave up their rights as far as I am concerned. Especially if they are foreign nationals attempting to commit acts of terrorism against Americans.

Untill theve had a fair impartial and swift trial, they have as many rights as you or I.

If you start making accseptions, liberty means nothing.