Guantanamo ruling

Big · 06-13-2008, 02:12 PM

They delivered the freedom missiles in the heart of the infidel as far as they are concerned. Try them or not, that's what they did.

It would be no different than Hitler trying Russian partisans for blowing up his trains.

Tight-Waist · 06-13-2008, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"We could have killed them without penalty -- but now that they are captured, they all of a sudden have all these rights. As I said, it does not make sense"

-How does that not make sense, it's the way our law works. If you shoot at cops they can shoot back and kill you without penalty, but if they catch you you all of a sudden have rights. Makes sense to me.

What does NOT make sense is bestowing upon these terrorists the same rights and privledges of an American citizen, which they are NOT!

FloggingSully · 06-13-2008, 03:06 PM

Right, how silly of me, it's right there in the constitution "We hold these truthes to be self evident, that all CITIZENS OF THE USA are created equal with certain unalienable rights..."

my bad.

Tight-Waist · 06-13-2008, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Right, how silly of me, it's right there in the constitution "We hold these truthes to be self evident, that all CITIZENS OF THE USA are created equal with certain unalienable rights..."

my bad.

It IS your bad!

Just HOW do you qualify these terrorists as CITIZENS?????????????
Were they born here? Are they naturalized Americans? Did they take a citizenship test?

They are no more CITIZENS than German POWs in WWII.

FloggingSully · 06-13-2008, 03:40 PM

My point was that the rights garanteed in the constitution are for everyone, not just US citizens. Show me one place where the constitution says that ONLY US citizens have the right to anything in the bill of rights.

Cyclone85 · 06-13-2008, 03:52 PM

I dissent with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts on this one. Your line of thinking will get everybody killed, and Scalia is right that the nation will regret what the court has done.

lol @ humans. I've seen the beheading videos; they are not human. A real human being does not cut the head off of a living man. I suggest you watch 1 or 12 of them.

Originally Posted by matclone

Their status as "combatants" as opposed to "prisoners of war" is in dispute even if you and the pimps of talk radio proclaim it to be undisputed.

They're entitled to due process, probably in part because they're human beings--despite your evident wish that they hold some inferior status.

Big · 06-13-2008, 03:54 PM

A real human being does not cut the head off of a living man.

Catholic Church did just that in the Middle Ages.

FloggingSully · 06-13-2008, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

I dissent with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts on this one. Your line of thinking will get everybody killed, and Scalia is right that the nation will regret what the court has done.

lol @ humans. I've seen the beheading videos; they are not human. A real human being does not cut the head off of a living man. I suggest you watch 1 or 12 of them.

It's not the job of the court to decide what should be done, or what is best for the country. The courts job is to interpret the law. Judges that would rule based on what effect their ruling will have are attempting to legislate from the bench. Are you in favor of judicial legislation?

Do we know that everyone in Git-mo has beheaded someone? if so then the trial shouldn't be a problem since we have them murdering people on tape.

Cyclone85 · 06-13-2008, 04:09 PM

I agree. The court got it wrong this time. It's not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last time.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

It's not the job of the court to decide what should be done, or what is best for the country. The courts job is to interpret the law. Judges that would rule based on what effect their ruling will have are attempting to legislate from the bench. Are you in favor of judicial legislation?

Do we know that everyone in Git-mo has beheaded someone? if so then the trial shouldn't be a problem since we have them murdering people on tape.

Tight-Waist · 06-13-2008, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

My point was that the rights garanteed in the constitution are for everyone, not just US citizens. Show me one place where the constitution says that ONLY US citizens have the right to anything in the bill of rights.

If you want to know what a citizen is its in the Dictionary. It doesnt include those that have never even visited that country!

Show me one place where it suggests that it does apply to non-citizens.

It doesnt say ONLY humans either do you want to grant rights to animals too.

Look... laws are limited to what is written in them. You cannot read into a law that which is silent.

Would you have granted trials to each and every German and Japanese POW in WWII????? Under this ruling it appears we would have had to.

Are we now going to have to train Marines in proper Miranda proceedures too? Heck, can we even shoot at them in the field of battle without probable cause? Can we enter a terroroists house without a warrant... or should our soldiers have to get a judge's written orders first? And what about their appeals?

Let me ask you another question. Just how much longer are you willing to wait to have your own legal issue resolved in Federal Court now that its being tied up with who knows how many hearings, and appeals for terrorists???

Lets say we catch one on the way over with a nuke. We cant even ask him nicely about his plans to kill a few million Americans now under this ruling.

Its assinine!

Guantanamo ruling

Politics & Religion