Political Crossfire Forums

[00timh]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: 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? This that you say, that people who have basic rights simply because they exist is perhaps the greatest argument for U.S. intervention would it not? If another country is abusing it's sitizens, stripping these basic rights away, aren't we simply doing the right thing to tear down these governments such as Iraq? Yet, the libertarian stance is also one that is totally against international intervention. Sounds like a paradox within the Libertarian party if you ask me.

[Swampfox.f]

Quote: Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees

Good, we must remember that value of human life and the propensity to be wrong in our suspects.

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

This isn't anywhere near good enough definition.

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

What is coercion, and how does it compare to torture. Where is the line?
Quote:
Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

So it does nothing?
Quote:
Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

I guess this is good?

Quote:
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

THis is great, a president who would be king needs to have checks and balances.

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


This is good; our government needs to be contained by the constitution. It is a shame Bush and the neo's has been doing everything they can to destroy it.

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

homerjay_s wrote: 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.

So the terrorist can make a mockery of our courts, waste millions, if not billions, of US tax dollars to support reprobate ACLU lawyers. And all the while allow terrorists to sneak pocket nuclear or biological weapons into the US and kill hundreds of thousands of Americans because we cannot 'torture' them lest we violate the sacred cows of liberal induced delusionalism built upon the logic of idiocy.

[agentkgb]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: So the terrorist can make a mockery of our courts, waste millions, if not billions, of US tax dollars to support reprobate ACLU lawyers.
So that we can determine if they're actually a terrorist.
el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: the sacred cows of liberal induced delusionalism built upon the logic of idiocy.
Don't insult our cows.

[Swampfox.f]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote:

So the terrorist can make a mockery of our courts, waste millions, if not billions, of US tax dollars to support reprobate ACLU lawyers. And all the while allow terrorists to sneak pocket nuclear or biological weapons into the US and kill hundreds of thousands of Americans because we cannot 'torture' them lest we violate the sacred cows of liberal induced delusionalism built upon the logic of idiocy.


How does torture effect the defense of our boarders? You are saying that without torture we are defensless? Even with the element of suprise the best they could do was hijack some planes.

Funny thing though; Bush lets Dubai still manage our ports; eventhough they actually had connections to terrorism. I wonder why?

[thefranzkafkafront]

00timh wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: 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? This that you say, that people who have basic rights simply because they exist is perhaps the greatest argument for U.S. intervention would it not? If another country is abusing it's sitizens, stripping these basic rights away, aren't we simply doing the right thing to tear down these governments such as Iraq? Yet, the libertarian stance is also one that is totally against international intervention. Sounds like a paradox within the Libertarian party if you ask me.

No its not, im a libertarian, im probally one of the more hawkish people on this board.

I just don't consider the british goverment (which i consider illegitimate) or the american goverment (which is now a social democracy) to be the ideal candiates for this intervention.

[Rankor and Pissing]

I'm conflicted about this... I think it's reasonable to have habeas corpus in place and I think keeping suspected terrorists in jail for ever without a trial isn't a good plan. I also however, believe that in a state of war, certain normal rights and provisions can be usurped.

However, I have a big problem with my tax dollars paying for a suspected terrorist to get a fair trial. I also have a problem with lawyers getting fat on the back of tax payers because these slime holes have to GET a fair trial. I would like to see the UMCJ totally take this over - firstly, so lawyers don't get rich off of defending terrorists, secondly, so the trials of terrorists don't become the next big reality show circus, thirdly, so that justice can be levied in a quick and efficient manner. The ACLU and other groups linked into the "rights" movements in this country should be barred from having any say.

As far as the rest of the bill, it will most likely be chopped up into pieces and modified 10 ways to Sunday before it gets to a vote. No way the hardliners will even look at this bill in it's current form.

I'd be in favor of passing it as it is, IF, the guilty terrorists were to be executed; the executions would be televised on the big-3 (ABC, CBS, NBC) and the executions would be by firing squad only. Oh, and let's not forget to take some after pictures and slip them to Al-Jazeera arabic and English you know... to be fair and all.

[Ozzone]

Swampfox.f wrote: How does torture effect the defense of our boarders? You are saying that without torture we are defensless? Even with the element of suprise the best they could do was hijack some planes.

Yeah, and they hurt us immensely with those planes.





Quote: Funny thing though; Bush lets Dubai still manage our ports; eventhough they actually had connections to terrorism. I wonder why?

Maybe because, after 9/11, they joined our side to fight terrorism?

[jamesp]

politically and PERCEPTION wise, it puts the DEMS on the side of terrorists.

Right or wrong, when it comes time to stand up for our COUNTRY in the political arena this is a loose.

The timing of this with Dodd is completley nuts...next election cycle ,I can here it and see it now..

"After winning control of the Senate, less than 3 weeks later , Dem Sean Dodd presented legislation to assist terrorists."

And you all can spin it any which way till Tuesday, but that is exactly what Dodd is doing.

Is this what the nation wants and why they voted the DEMS in ?
Time will tell, but my hunch is NO, thats not what they expected or want.

[Swampfox.f]

Ozzone wrote:

Yeah, and they hurt us immensely with those planes.

It is now a tactic that will never work again, and certainly not a reason to give up our rights to the federal government as Bush has tried to implement.

You can keep beating the drum of "the terrorist are everywhere and all capable", but 9/11 was not an advanced attack or display of power such as Pearl Harbor.

I don't believe in abadoning our constitutional rights in the favor of an all powerful totalitarian government.

Quote:
Maybe because, after 9/11, they joined our side to fight terrorism?


So it is ok they supported terrorism before 9/11 and had connections to 9/11? They didn't even need to be tortured to change? One thing we know for certain is that there are some incongruities in the reasoning behind the need for a totalitarian government.

[Ozzone]

People seem to forget the Democrats didn't win control because Americans agreed with all of the Democrats on all of their agendas. Especially this agenda.

Americans might not like the way Iraq was going, but, in my opinion, they sure as hell won't like giving terrorists the same rights as any American.

[mr.snruB]

Ozzone wrote: People seem to forget the Democrats didn't win control because Americans agreed with all of the Democrats on all of their agendas. Especially this agenda.

Americans might not like the way Iraq was going, but, in my opinion, they sure as hell won't like giving terrorists the same rights as any American.

That's your opinion

[Ozzone]

mr.snruB wrote: Ozzone wrote: People seem to forget the Democrats didn't win control because Americans agreed with all of the Democrats on all of their agendas. Especially this agenda.

Americans might not like the way Iraq was going, but, in my opinion, they sure as hell won't like giving terrorists the same rights as any American.

That's your opinion

Duh.

[JLB]

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

Just shows how little senators know about the consitution.

Please show me where it says that every citizen of the planet is covered under the US Bill of Rights.

Here is evidence to contrary:


11thAMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.
Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

[JLB]

[quote="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.

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

Of American citizens.


Quote: 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.

Except for that darn 11th Amendment.....

[JLB]

[quote="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.

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

If the Arabs are American citizens, and ave not lost their citizenship by serving in a foreign army, then they have a right to a fair trial.

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

Yes, I can, as I know the law. 8:)

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:

Quote: 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.

Can we tax foreign citizens, or draft them?

Didn't think so. 8:)

[JLB]

The American wrote: 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.


Notice that aside rom putting corrupt people in the highest positions, empowering terrorists with the rights of US citizens is the first order of business with them.

It's disgusting.

[Tennouheika]

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

Haha, yeah it sounds good to me as well. Interesting how we all see things so completely different, amirite?

[bla bla]

A terrorist should be afforded the same legal rights as any other
suspected murderer in our courts.

If we don't want to uniformly execute our laws in the case of a foreign
offender then we should ship the person off to their country of origin.

Or work out a new legal definition of criminal (international terrorist)
separate from simple murder, or valid uniformed combatants.

[JLB]

00timh wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: 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? This that you say, that people who have basic rights simply because they exist is perhaps the greatest argument for U.S. intervention would it not? If another country is abusing it's sitizens, stripping these basic rights away, aren't we simply doing the right thing to tear down these governments such as Iraq? Yet, the libertarian stance is also one that is totally against international intervention. Sounds like a paradox within the Libertarian party if you ask me.


That's exactly right.

If Iraqis already had the rights we have, then it was up to us to go in and make sure they could exercise those rights.

It's a Libertarian's paradox, and somebody's head will now explode like a Fembot. :lol: