Political Crossfire Forums

[JLB]

bla bla wrote: 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.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

[Ozzone]

Swampfox.f wrote: 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.

That tactic will never work again BECAUSE President Bush implemented a policy to make sure it won't. Of course they still keep trying.

Airlines terror plot' disrupted

Try reading that to get an understanding of 1) they planned to use planes again, 2) "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" and 3) the use of newer intelligence methods to detect planned attacks.

I haven't given up any of my rights and I'm damn glad what was done helped prevent this from happening.

Swampfox.f wrote: 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.

Approximately the same number of people were killed. The economic and financial damage of 9/11 was much higher. It is disingenuous to compare the two events in capability as they both hurt us immensely.

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

Neither do I and I still have my constitutional rights just like I did before.

Swampfox.f wrote: 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.

Straw man argument alert. First of all, they didn't support terrorism. The government simply ignored it and did nothing to stop it - kinda like what we did.

Second, I could care less what connections a country had BEFORE 9/11, what I care about is what connections they have AFTER once we declared war on the terrorists.

Dubai has proved that they are willing to help us fight terrorism. Before you "beat your drum" about Dubai again, read up on what the country has done since 9/11.

However, it seems people like you are only fixated on mistakes that people or countries made, no matter when they were made.

[bla bla]

JLB wrote: bla bla wrote: 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.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

Enemy combatant in what army?

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

[Mr. Sunshine]

Starting out well. First bill is Dead On Arrival. :lol:

[TomPaine]

JLB wrote: bla bla wrote: 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.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

How do you know who's an "enemy combatant"? Without a trial, anybody could be anything you want to accuse them to be. When Hilary is President, maybe Republican discontents will all be declared as traitors. How could you argue against that, if the "Commander in Chief" said so!!!

Your short-sighted view of absolute Presidential power might not seem like such a good idea if Pelosi or Hilary were President, would it? Are prepared to surrender your rights to anybody who may ever be elected President, no matter who they are or what they stand for?

If not, maybe you should re-consider why the founding fathers wanted a nation of laws, not men.

[Ozzone]

bla bla wrote: JLB wrote: bla bla wrote: 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.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

Enemy combatant in what army?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

Seems the 1942 Supreme Court ruled on this already.

Quote: An enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1]

In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court used the following characterizations to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:

Quote: Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

I would say that terrorists fall into that category very easily. They are unlawful combatants.

[callous]

Oh darn, a bill to protect those who inconvenience the White House agenda. How unpatriotic.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try a serious thread for once.

[bla bla]

Ozzone wrote: bla bla wrote: JLB wrote: bla bla wrote: 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.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

Enemy combatant in what army?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

Seems the 1942 Supreme Court ruled on this already.

Quote: An enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1]

In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court used the following characterizations to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:

Quote: Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

I would say that terrorists fall into that category very easily. They are unlawful combatants.

Thanks,

The teminology for terrorist IS "enemy combatant", and seperate from
from say "enemy soldier".


But arent most of the detainees at GITMO people who never crossed
any national boundry, or theselves commited any know act against a
US national interst (embassy, citizen, etc.) other than being suspected
members of a anti US network.

Or were they all combatants in the Afganistan action?

[JLB]

TomPaine wrote: JLB wrote: bla bla wrote: 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.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

How do you know who's an "enemy combatant"? Without a trial, anybody could be anything you want to accuse them to be. When Hilary is President, maybe Republican discontents will all be declared as traitors. How could you argue against that, if the "Commander in Chief" said so!!!

Your short-sighted view of absolute Presidential power might not seem like such a good idea if Pelosi or Hilary were President, would it? Are prepared to surrender your rights to anybody who may ever be elected President, no matter who they are or what they stand for?

If not, maybe you should re-consider why the founding fathers wanted a nation of laws, not men.

Anyone who enters combat with the US and is not in uniform is an enemy combatant, and is not only not covered by the Bill of Rights, but the Geneva Convention either.

[JLB]

callous wrote: Oh darn, a bill to protect those who inconvenience the White House agenda. How unpatriotic.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try a serious thread for once.

Keeping Americans safe is the White House's agenda.

Helping our enemies seems to be Dodd's agenda, and you seem to agree with him.

What does that make you? 8:)

[callous]

JLB wrote: callous wrote: Oh darn, a bill to protect those who inconvenience the White House agenda. How unpatriotic.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try a serious thread for once.

Keeping Americans safe is the White House's agenda.

Helping our enemies seems to be Dodd's agenda, and you seem to agree with him.

What does that make you? 8:)

Someone who doesn't give a s**t about what you think the White Houses agenda is. I believe thats what it makes me.

You have no clue about Dodds agenda, all you have is the ability to create talking points.

So what you are, is a GOP interpreter for the brainwashed. I am the one who makes your agenda transparent.

Anything else you'd like to understand?

[Ozzone]

bla bla wrote: Ozzone wrote: bla bla wrote: JLB wrote: bla bla wrote: 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.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

Enemy combatant in what army?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

Seems the 1942 Supreme Court ruled on this already.

Quote: An enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1]

In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court used the following characterizations to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:

Quote: Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

I would say that terrorists fall into that category very easily. They are unlawful combatants.

Thanks,

You're welcome.

Quote: The teminology for terrorist IS "enemy combatant", and seperate from say "enemy soldier".

Correct. A soldier wears a distinguishable uniform.

Quote: But arent most of the detainees at GITMO people who never crossed any national boundry, or theselves commited any know act against a US national interst (embassy, citizen, etc.) other than being suspected members of a anti US network.

I have no idea. But you also might want to read up on the War Powers Act authorized by Congress which has exceptions for Al Qaeda members that supercedes the ruling.

Quote: Or were they all combatants in the Afganistan action?

Again, I don't know.

[JLB]

[quote="callous"] JLB wrote: callous wrote: Oh darn, a bill to protect those who inconvenience the White House agenda. How unpatriotic.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try a serious thread for once.

Keeping Americans safe is the White House's agenda.

Helping our enemies seems to be Dodd's agenda, and you seem to agree with him.

What does that make you? 8:)

Quote: Someone who doesn't give a s**t about what you think the White Houses agenda is. I believe thats what it makes me.

Uninformed.....

Quote: You have no clue about Dodds agenda, all you have is the ability to create talking points.

Gee, my link is straight from Dodd's web site, announcing his agenda! :lol:


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

So I think I do..... 8:)



Quote: So what you are, is a GOP interpreter for the brainwashed. I am the one who makes your agenda transparent.

Again, this is Dodd's agenda from his own personal web page.

Go argue with him about why he supports terrorists instead of America.

Quote: Anything else you'd like to understand?

I don't think there is anything you can help me with. 8:)

[callous]

[quote="JLB"] callous wrote: JLB wrote: callous wrote: Oh darn, a bill to protect those who inconvenience the White House agenda. How unpatriotic.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try a serious thread for once.

Keeping Americans safe is the White House's agenda.

Helping our enemies seems to be Dodd's agenda, and you seem to agree with him.

What does that make you? 8:)

Quote: Someone who doesn't give a s**t about what you think the White Houses agenda is. I believe thats what it makes me.

Uninformed.....

Quote: You have no clue about Dodds agenda, all you have is the ability to create talking points.

Gee, my link is straight from Dodd's web site, announcing his agenda! :lol:


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

So I think I do..... 8:)



Quote: So what you are, is a GOP interpreter for the brainwashed. I am the one who makes your agenda transparent.

Again, this is Dodd's agenda from his own personal web page.

Go argue with him about why he supports terrorists instead of America.

Quote: Anything else you'd like to understand?

I don't think there is anything you can help me with. 8:)

Did you just try to respond or are you talking to yourself? :rotf:

Please explain the context in which you apparently placed the word "uniformed" as it doesn't have a context of its own, subsequently making it a completely random statement.

And your opinion about Dodd is nothing to debate about, I thought you were interested in debating the thread statement?

Apparently I could help you with much, as you seem to be swerving all over the road to understanding.

[bla bla]

Ozzone wrote:
I have no idea. But you also might want to read up on the War Powers Act authorized by Congress which has exceptions for Al Qaeda members that supercedes the ruling.


Well it's not hard to see members of that group as know conspirators
actively seeking to do damage, and take lives.

[thefranzkafkafront]

JLB wrote: 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.

I like how you missed the actual bill of rights out JLB.

You do realize the bill of rights is amendments 1 to 10.

'Congress shall make no law' sound familiar?

[TomPaine]

JLB wrote: TomPaine wrote: JLB wrote: bla bla wrote: 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.

The are enemy combatants, and they have no rights at all.

How do you know who's an "enemy combatant"? Without a trial, anybody could be anything you want to accuse them to be. When Hilary is President, maybe Republican discontents will all be declared as traitors. How could you argue against that, if the "Commander in Chief" said so!!!

Your short-sighted view of absolute Presidential power might not seem like such a good idea if Pelosi or Hilary were President, would it? Are prepared to surrender your rights to anybody who may ever be elected President, no matter who they are or what they stand for?

If not, maybe you should re-consider why the founding fathers wanted a nation of laws, not men.

Anyone who enters combat with the US and is not in uniform is an enemy combatant, and is not only not covered by the Bill of Rights, but the Geneva Convention either.

If you can establish that these people were in combat against the US then you shouldn't have any problem getting a conviction in a fair trial. Why did the government have so much trouble figuring out what exactly Jose Padilla had done, if combat against the US was so easy to define?

[thefranzkafkafront]

JLB wrote: 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:

I see you've ignored my responce to 00timh. Good for you.

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

The hypocrisy:
Common sense dictates that we overcome new threats by adapting to them. The terrorists present a threat like we've never seen. We must likewise adapt our tactics to their ways or perhaps suffer greatly. A few successful terrorist attacks and we degenerate into a police state, our economy tanks and a once free populace suffers miserably because we didn't have the foresight to adapt to the new threat.

So what does liberalism do? Play politics with lives and the well being of our country to support the lunacy of not allowing the CIA or military to use coercive measures to find pocket nuclear or biological weapons smuggled into the US by these reprobates. Moreover, lets play Mr. Nice Guy and show the world how virtuous we are and give the slit your daughters throat jihadists free ACLU lawyers at taxpayers expense.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE FALSE GODS OF LIBERALISM DEMAND SACRIFICE: YOUR'S AND MY FAMILIES LIVES IF NECESSARY.

[steve abdul jabbar]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: JLB wrote: 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.

I like how you missed the actual bill of rights out JLB.

You do realize the bill of rights is amendments 1 to 10.

'Congress shall make no law' sound familiar?

Not only that, but he's trying to confuse the truth by claiming that clause means "rights are only for U.S. citizens."

He doesn't understand that the Constitution puts limitations on the government on how they can act. Not how they can act against Americans. If you read it, you'll find that where clauses apply to citizens, it specifically states so.