Political Crossfire Forums

[callous]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: 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.

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.

So beginning from that bedrock, there actually is nothing within your statement that is useful in any way.

And you might want to look up the difference between a political spectrum and a religion, .... they are quite different.

Just trying to help. :lol:

[[Bible]Monkey]

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.

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.



Could be you're right JLB, but didn't the Supreme Court say -in effect-that
Amendment XIV

Quote: .. nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
totally kicks amendment XI's ass ? If you have the asshat in the slammer-he's under U.S jurisdiction.

Isn't XI ( dunno) more about one ( U.S) State suing another State-what started that was South Carolina suing Georgia-or whatever.

As I say, I haven't followed this whole thing too closely-but it seems to me that if the U.S slammers someone, that puts that guy under U.S jurisdiction-kicking in XIV? Even if the Supreme Court didn't recently specifically say that ( as I say I haven't followed it ) in their last ruling ;the one that blocked the Executive branch...

------
What percentage of alleged asshats were released ? Aren't we picking up ( or did) a bunch , and held them quite a while , that were just cabdrivers, etc? Seperating the wheat from the chaff is a problem, yet we can't give them all a full-meal-deal trial....it's a problem. I think there's a backlog of 14,000 slammered in Iraq...that ain't helping matters....

[Ellron]

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:

The Bill of Rights is protection from our government not other governments.

To ez. 8:)

[bla bla]

callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote:

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

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.



Now terrorists don't even exist.

:rotf:

[agentkgb]

bla bla wrote: callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote:

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

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.



Now terrorists don't even exist.
:? Where'd you get that from?

[callous]

bla bla wrote: callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote:

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

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.



Now terrorists don't even exist.

:rotf:

Are you attempting to create another false reality or trying a little conservative jokey-joke?

[bla bla]

callous wrote: bla bla wrote: callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote:

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

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.



Now terrorists don't even exist.

:rotf:

Are you attempting to create another false reality or trying a little conservative jokey-joke?

It's just socially conservative paranoia, my mind is gone.

[callous]

bla bla wrote: callous wrote: bla bla wrote: callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote:

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

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.



Now terrorists don't even exist.

:rotf:

Are you attempting to create another false reality or trying a little conservative jokey-joke?

It's just socially conservative paranoia, my mind is gone.

Don't be bitter, its just your painfully obvious talking points I dislike, not you.

[BobbyO]

homerjay_s wrote: 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?

Because they are not "alleged" criminals. They are being treated as enemy combatants.

[BobbyO]

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.

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

That is what was done, and what Dodd wishes to unravel!

[Ozzone]

BobbyO wrote: homerjay_s wrote: 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?

Because they are not "alleged" criminals. They are being treated as enemy combatants.

Thank you for clearing that up for homer. He needs to understand the difference it seems.

[Chymical]

I've come to the conclusion JLB is the foremost satarists of our generation, if not far ahead of his time.

Truely one of the greatests...

[Chymical]

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.

because terrorism is overtly political violence, and politicians = pansies
of puddy cats if you will. you can have over murder, poverty, crime filth and decay clogging your nation, s long as you got £1000 billion to piss on the new imperialism emboldened by it's pathetic fear of low level terrorism and it's perhaps evil wish to make it worse for the sake of it's own power.

[blockhead]

After he was arrested in 2002, Jose Padilla was considered so dangerous that he was held without charges in a military prison for more than three years — accused first of plotting a radiological "dirty bomb" attack and later of conspiring with al-Qaeda to blow up apartment buildings with natural gas.

But now, nearly a year after his abrupt transfer into a regular criminal court, the Justice Department's prosecution of the former Chicago gang member is running into trouble.

Republican-appointed federal judge in Miami has already dumped the most serious conspiracy count against Padilla, removing for now the possibility of a life sentence. The same judge has also disparaged the government's case as "light on facts," while defense lawyers have made detailed allegations that Padilla was illegally tortured, threatened and perhaps even drugged during his detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

...

But some legal scholars and defense lawyers argue that the government's case is so fundamentally weak, and its legal options so limited, that Padilla could draw a relatively minor prison term or even be acquitted.

...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111800484.html

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: 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.

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.

So beginning from that bedrock, there actually is nothing within your statement that is useful in any way.

And you might want to look up the difference between a political spectrum and a religion, .... they are quite different.

Just trying to help. :lol:

Anti-intellectualism at its finest! Couldn't have found a better example of liberal dismissivism and empty parroted drivel if I'd done a Google search.
"..conservative paranoia." This shows just how detached some lefties are from reality. Tell that to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, the English and Spanish train bombings...and you might have your face rearranged.

Plus for those memory challenged lefties who quaintly forget reality so they can make their own, the CIA has stopped terrorist attacks and saved lives already using Bush's policies. Or would you rather have the attacks been successful and those people be dead so you could burn candles at the alter of your inviolable sacred cows right?
:moon:

[Charlie Man]

Most people - "Suspected terrorists should have rights until they're convicted, on the chance they're innocent"

Some people - "Tell that to the mothers who lost their sons on 9/11! Or would you rather the CIA let you die of a terrorist attack?"


And yet Some people don't understand why they're considered out of the mainstream. Okay, I'll try and explain this as honestly as I can. I am scared of terrorists, and I am glad that the CIA is stopping them. I am also glad that America has a constitution, and I think that the biggest reason for America's greatness is that it recognizes that everyone has inherent rights, including the idea that you have the right to a fair trial. We cannot abandon our ideas because of fear. So even though I would indeed not like it if the CIA stopped preventing attacks, I will never, ever, give up the ideal that human rights exist for all people.

I am scared. But I will not back down. Not because of what terrorists are, but because of what America is, and that's why people who try to use fear to get people to give up the rights of others fail.

[callous]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: callous wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: 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.

Actually, common sense dictates that we react to threats that apply to reality, not socially conservative paranoia.

So beginning from that bedrock, there actually is nothing within your statement that is useful in any way.

And you might want to look up the difference between a political spectrum and a religion, .... they are quite different.

Just trying to help. :lol:

Anti-intellectualism at its finest! Couldn't have found a better example of liberal dismissivism and empty parroted drivel if I'd done a Google search.
"..conservative paranoia." This shows just how detached some lefties are from reality. Tell that to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, the English and Spanish train bombings...and you might have your face rearranged.

Plus for those memory challenged lefties who quaintly forget reality so they can make their own, the CIA has stopped terrorist attacks and saved lives already using Bush's policies. Or would you rather have the attacks been successful and those people be dead so you could burn candles at the alter of your inviolable sacred cows right?
:moon:

The families who lost loved ones on 9/11 are still looking for answers as to why they lost them, thanks to your president.

If you'd like to respect their memory, you'd help their loved ones figure it out, instead of supporting Bush.

And there were no terror attacks, because you can not prove there were terror attacks, other than Bush's latest lie.

[homerjay_s]

Ozzone wrote: BobbyO wrote: homerjay_s wrote: 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?

Because they are not "alleged" criminals. They are being treated as enemy combatants.

Thank you for clearing that up for homer. He needs to understand the difference it seems.

Actually, why don't you explain the difference for us all. Help us understand why the label "enemy combatant" all of a sudden should make it okay to detain indefinitely without bringing charges or providing a trial, and to use torture as a means of "interrogation".

Please explain.

[Nathyn]

NOT EVERY HUMIN BEAN HAS RIGHTS.

WTF, this is TREASON!!!11

rights are established not naturel

teh goverment hath given rights, the govArmet taketh away!

[steve abdul jabbar]

Ozzone wrote: BobbyO wrote: Because they are not "alleged" criminals. They are being treated as enemy combatants.

Thank you for clearing that up for homer. He needs to understand the difference it seems.

Oh I see. What a wonderful country when you can change the terms and bypass the Constitution!

Why didn't prosecutors think of that before? He's not a suspect, he's an enemy combatant! No need for all that legal protection mumbo-jumbo!

Is anti-Constitution the same as anti-American?