[tonysk83]

I will play the slippery slope argument. Look at how history has manifested itself in terms of using national security to deny citizen's rights. It is already a fact that the Bush Administration has locked up innocent people, given them no trials, and released them several weeks or months later. Google Donald Vance. There are plenty of other cases that we have all heard about.

It seems to me it is the neo-cons always saying freedom isn't free to justify fighting in Iraq. Well guess what? Freedom isn't free, and that is why we must live with a risk of terror attack on this country while not taking away our freedoms, all the ones laid on in the Bill of Rights and the constitution. Freedom isn't free, and that is why I believe my freedoms shouldn't be taken away just to make me "safer".

Originally Posted by backright_gethimout

I still am not seeing anything unconstitutional with the Patriot Act. I mean, show me where in the Constitution the Patriot Act is not legal, and I will say I am wrong, right here in this thread.

False, parts of the Patriot Act have been found unconstitutional.

Read.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings...ion_092904.pdf

It is long, but you can take info from it and good certain parts to get a briefed case.

edit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep29.html theres a shorter article on it

[dont touch the hair]

Originally Posted by Underfunded

Wait... this sounds familiar.... Some central european country that also had camps where they held people without trial... I must have a bad memory, do you remember who they were?

This is a completely invalid point, as the Nazis were exterminating the Jews to help purge society of any weakness and impurities and create the ideal Germanic race.

We are protecting our country and soldiers by holding these people captive, not killing them for unjust reasons. And speaking of why they don't and shouldn't get trials:

Originally Posted by backright_gethimout

The Guantanamo bay captives have no Constitutional rights. Those rights are for American citizens, not for foreign military captives, who were caught in the battlefield. That is what people do not realize. We did not kidnap these people, they were imprisoned while firing on our military forces in battle. The Constitution is a simple document, that is its beauty. When it was passed, if it were not simple so everyone could grasp it, it would not have been ratified. The fact of the matter is, I have read it countless times, and no where does it say foreign fighters are protected by our Constitution. It does not extend to them, period, the end.

If you want to argue that they should have the right to trial by a jury of their peers, go for it. But, realize that you are ultimately giving every single person who is not a citizen of the U.S. rights that ONLY U.S. CITIZENS are granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is not a living document that should be trampled on; it is the concrete base of what is the most democratic nation in the history of humanity. The only way we can protect the freedoms that we enjoy is to protect our country and the rights of its citizens, first and foremost. Once we give non-U.S. citizens the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens, we start losing our sovereignty as those people will spit on our laws and traditions, then go into our court system to fight for their "right" to do whatever they want. This will ultimately lead to the destruction of everything we hold dear.

These captives have their inalienable rights to life (the reason they are not being slaughtered), but all others should not be granted, considering they are attacking and attempting to destroy the liberty that this country stands and fights for.

[dont touch the hair]

Originally Posted by Underfunded

Yeah sure, we really almost got invaded there...

This is my exhibit one of conservatives using fear to leverage their views.

Are you serious? I agree with you completely about certain things being fearmongering, but are you honestly trying to tell me that ONLY people with an "R" behind their names are the only ones doing it?

What about the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Hunger, Global Warming, War on my underwear, War on Racism, War on Obesity, blah blah blah... Those must all be right-wing extremists' ideas/policies, too.

Seemingly every politician does it, so let's not single any one in particular out.

[Underfunded]

Originally Posted by He||Fire

Guess what? The U.S. Constitution even allows for the executive branch to imprison U.S. citizens with no trial or evidence that they've done something wrong. Habeus Corpus can be suspended in a time of conflict in the interest of national security. The executive branch takes over, and the responsibility of securing our country should lie in the hands of the Commander in Chief, not Supreme Court justices. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Let's think of some other "camps" where people were held without trial. Hmm... Abraham Lincoln, the "great liberator," suspended Habeus Corpus to hold Confederate troops, who were U.S. Citizens, in the interest of national security. It's no different than what Bush is doing now.

Another thing, these prisoners don't have any rights, whether international, Constitutional, or Geneva-related. They're not uniformed members of any army supported by a head of state, and therefore, are not granted any Geneva rights. Technically, we can do whatever the hell we want to them.

Comparing the war on terror to the civil war is just flat out inaccurate. In the Civil war, we drafted thousands of men, on both sides, to fight a large scale war with many, many battles and skirmishes between conventional armies.

The war on terror had one attack on our soil by an unconventional force.

Oh, by the way, there's also the little fact that war was never declared by the president. I can see presidents taking unprecedented actions during a time of declared war. But we're not in a declared war.

Unless we say we are always at war, in which case we're starting to sound very fascist, sounding like we're taking a page from 1984.

Sure, we could do anything we want with them and not be punished from an international law standpoint, but does that mean we should? Does that mean we should disregaurd humanity in such a way? Does that mean we should abbanddon all we stand for, or once stood for, because we're a little scared?

[Underfunded]

Originally Posted by dont touch the hair

Are you serious? I agree with you completely about certain things being fearmongering, but are you honestly trying to tell me that ONLY people with an "R" behind their names are the only ones doing it?

What about the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Hunger, Global Warming, War on my underwear, War on Racism, War on Obesity, blah blah blah... Those must all be right-wing extremists' ideas/policies, too.

Seemingly every politician does it, so let's not single any one in particular out.

Never heard of the war on racism/obesity... I know you're just making a point but...

War on poverty isn't exactly fearmongering. It's saying ****ty situations exist and we should eliminate them. It's not saying "We're all going to become poor if we don't eliminate poverty" or anything. Same for hunger.

I'll give you global warming, I can see why you can claim Gore and co. are fearmongering, even if logic tends to dictate that we should be scared.

[dont touch the hair]

Originally Posted by Underfunded

Comparing the war on terror to the civil war is just flat out inaccurate. In the Civil war, we drafted thousands of men, on both sides, to fight a large scale war with many, many battles and skirmishes between conventional armies.

The war on terror had one attack on our soil by an unconventional force.

Oh, by the way, there's also the little fact that war was never declared by the president. I can see presidents taking unprecedented actions during a time of declared war. But we're not in a declared war.

Unless we say we are always at war, in which case we're starting to sound very fascist, sounding like we're taking a page from 1984.

Sure, we could do anything we want with them and not be punished from an international law standpoint, but does that mean we should? Does that mean we should disregaurd humanity in such a way? Does that mean we should abbanddon all we stand for, or once stood for, because we're a little scared?

I agree with pretty much everything you have said right here.

The only comment that I have is due to the last paragraph: We are not holding them in Gitmo for the intent of punishing them. We are holding them as POWs, which keeps them from rejoining the fighting. They are not being treated inhumanely (well, the vast majority of them aren't); the complete opposite is true when our soldiers OR CITIZENS get captured.

We are not abandoning what we stand for... Since everyone around here likes quotes so much: "Evil prospers when good men do nothing". Last time I checked, the Islamic fundamentalists we are fighting against have the sole intent to rule through terror and to destroy any way of life besides theirs. This country stands for more freedoms than 98% of the world's population can possibly comprehend, so again, we are not abandoning what we stand for when we are the only people willing to stand up to tyranny and oppression.

[PKT1106]

1. Article I - Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq. There was nothing secret about it, In fact, it was on the news every day
2. Article II - Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.There are terrorist cell that operate out of Iraq to this day
3. Article III - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.Is there any American, in there right mind, who didn't think Saddam had the ability to create WMDs?
4. Article IV - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.Once again, with Saddam still in power, there was a threat
5. Article V - Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.Just like it says in the premise of checks and balances, congress has the power to stop the President from doing anything. How could he sneek out a 12 billion a month and no one noticed?
6. Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
7. Article VII - Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.The tone of the entire country on 9/12/01 was to go to war, there was no need for a declaration
8. Article VIII - Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.**** the UN
9. Article IX - Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle ArmorWe need money from congress to do this. Kinda goes against the arguement that he secretly used funds to go to war.
10. Article X - Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political PurposesLike the media doesn't falsify death reports?
11. Article XI - Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in IraqAnd this is a problem because....?
12. Article XII - Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural ResourcesLot of good it did us, gas is twice as high as it was when we started this war.
13. Article XIII - Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other CountriesIf it's secret, how does Kucinich know?
14. Article XIV - Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence AgencyShe was already out of the CIA and a civilian at that time.
15. Article XV - Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in IraqPeople who were doing what was told of them in a place resembling the 5th level of hell. With women and children shooting at them, no less.
16. Article XVI - Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US ContractorsWe could bring this to every congressman in washington for all their little pet projects.
17. Article XVII - Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign CaptivesThere is a reason those people were/are held.
18. Article XVIII - Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official PolicyThey do it to our troops in their prisons and it's naive to think otherwise.
19. Article XIX - Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to 'Black Sites' Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice TortureThere are reasons these peopl were treated as such. THEY WANT US DEAD!!
20. Article XX - Imprisoning ChildrenThey can fire AKs too.
21. Article XXI - Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian GovernmentAT this point, I am wondering if Kucinich was in on it and got cold feet?
22. Article XXII - Creating Secret LawsReally?
23. Article XXIII - Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
24. Article XXIV - Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
25. Article XXV - Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
26. Article XXVI - Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
27. Article XXVII - Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
28. Article XXVIII - Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of JusticeGore and Kerry lost, get over it.
29. Article XXIX - Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
30. Article XXX - Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
31. Article XXXI - Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency Who predicted Katrina? Also, NO is a city bulit IN A BOWL OF LAND. It's lower than sea level, meaning IT WILL FLOOD AGAIN. Those stupid enough to stay there don't deserve anymore help.
32. Article XXXII - Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate ChangeGlobal climate change and global warming due to human influences have not been proven. In the 70s, people were all up in arms about "global cooling" and we, to this day, have not seen a glacier in ohio yet.
33. Article XXXIII - Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.So, someone told Bush 9/11 was going to happen and he didn't listen. Now he tells them about Iraq and they don't listen to him? Sounds ironic.
34. Article XXXIV - Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
35. Article XXXV - Endangering the Health of 911 First RespondersI am sorry he didn't clean up the rubble before they got to the scene. He is also not the scene commander at such an event.

Everyone of these alleged charges could have been curtailed if congress acted instead of sitting on their fat *****. The fact is that most of these charges could be brought againt every one in both houses.

[darx]

Originally Posted by NotAnotherBrick

4-5 years ago we were all afraid of walking outside because of the crazy propaganda going around. At one time, I was actually scared that I was going to get anthrax in the mail, have my school bombed by terrorists, or see a nuclear bomb detonated in Ohio because of the steel manufacturing targets here. Sure I was young and naive, but that is the kind of fear tactics that Bush used to stay in office. Honestly..terror alert levels? It all seems absolutely retarded now, but back when those things were flashing all over every news station, it scared everyone into submission. We gave up our rights because of it, we supported an unjust war because of it, and now we are paying the price for it. Get this worthless president out of office - even if it is only to serve as an example for the future.

Good post my friend.

[Underfunded]

Originally Posted by dont touch the hair

I agree with pretty much everything you have said right here.

The only comment that I have is due to the last paragraph: We are not holding them in Gitmo for the intent of punishing them. We are holding them as POWs, which keeps them from rejoining the fighting. They are not being treated inhumanely (well, the vast majority of them aren't); the complete opposite is true when our soldiers OR CITIZENS get captured.

We are not abandoning what we stand for... Since everyone around here likes quotes so much: "Evil prospers when good men do nothing". Last time I checked, the Islamic fundamentalists we are fighting against have the sole intent to rule through terror and to destroy any way of life besides theirs. This country stands for more freedoms than 98% of the world's population can possibly comprehend, so again, we are not abandoning what we stand for when we are the only people willing to stand up to tyranny and oppression.

But I just don't think that practicing tyranny and oppression is the solution to tyranny and oppression. It's not just guantanamo. It's abu garhab. It's this whole war, that's just totally lost it's meaning after we were prommissed WMDs and there were none, and no one has justified it again, other than, "Oh, he was a bad guy". Which is true, but if we're invading other countries because their regime is bad, we've got half the world to invade, and there are places that are much worse than Iraq was.

[dont touch the hair]

Originally Posted by Underfunded

But I just don't think that practicing tyranny and oppression is the solution to tyranny and oppression. It's not just guantanamo. It's abu garhab. It's this whole war, that's just totally lost it's meaning after we were prommissed WMDs and there were none, and no one has justified it again, other than, "Oh, he was a bad guy". Which is true, but if we're invading other countries because their regime is bad, we've got half the world to invade, and there are places that are much worse than Iraq was.

And again, pretty well said. I don't have any argument with this thought process. One thing is for sure, though. I'm glad I'm not making the executive decision on all this stuff...

[NorCalBaller88]

Originally Posted by PKT1106

1. Article I - Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq. There was nothing secret about it, In fact, it was on the news every day
2. Article II - Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.There are terrorist cell that operate out of Iraq to this day
3. Article III - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.Is there any American, in there right mind, who didn't think Saddam had the ability to create WMDs?
4. Article IV - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.Once again, with Saddam still in power, there was a threat
5. Article V - Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.Just like it says in the premise of checks and balances, congress has the power to stop the President from doing anything. How could he sneek out a 12 billion a month and no one noticed?
6. Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
7. Article VII - Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.The tone of the entire country on 9/12/01 was to go to war, there was no need for a declaration
8. Article VIII - Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.**** the UN
9. Article IX - Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle ArmorWe need money from congress to do this. Kinda goes against the arguement that he secretly used funds to go to war.
10. Article X - Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political PurposesLike the media doesn't falsify death reports?
11. Article XI - Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in IraqAnd this is a problem because....?
12. Article XII - Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural ResourcesLot of good it did us, gas is twice as high as it was when we started this war.
13. Article XIII - Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other CountriesIf it's secret, how does Kucinich know?
14. Article XIV - Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence AgencyShe was already out of the CIA and a civilian at that time.
15. Article XV - Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in IraqPeople who were doing what was told of them in a place resembling the 5th level of hell. With women and children shooting at them, no less.
16. Article XVI - Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US ContractorsWe could bring this to every congressman in washington for all their little pet projects.
17. Article XVII - Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign CaptivesThere is a reason those people were/are held.
18. Article XVIII - Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official PolicyThey do it to our troops in their prisons and it's naive to think otherwise.
19. Article XIX - Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to 'Black Sites' Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice TortureThere are reasons these peopl were treated as such. THEY WANT US DEAD!!
20. Article XX - Imprisoning ChildrenThey can fire AKs too.
21. Article XXI - Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian GovernmentAT this point, I am wondering if Kucinich was in on it and got cold feet?
22. Article XXII - Creating Secret LawsReally?
23. Article XXIII - Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
24. Article XXIV - Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
25. Article XXV - Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
26. Article XXVI - Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
27. Article XXVII - Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
28. Article XXVIII - Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of JusticeGore and Kerry lost, get over it.
29. Article XXIX - Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
30. Article XXX - Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
31. Article XXXI - Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency Who predicted Katrina? Also, NO is a city bulit IN A BOWL OF LAND. It's lower than sea level, meaning IT WILL FLOOD AGAIN. Those stupid enough to stay there don't deserve anymore help.
32. Article XXXII - Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate ChangeGlobal climate change and global warming due to human influences have not been proven. In the 70s, people were all up in arms about "global cooling" and we, to this day, have not seen a glacier in ohio yet.
33. Article XXXIII - Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.So, someone told Bush 9/11 was going to happen and he didn't listen. Now he tells them about Iraq and they don't listen to him? Sounds ironic.
34. Article XXXIV - Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
35. Article XXXV - Endangering the Health of 911 First RespondersI am sorry he didn't clean up the rubble before they got to the scene. He is also not the scene commander at such an event.

Everyone of these alleged charges could have been curtailed if congress acted instead of sitting on their fat *****. The fact is that most of these charges could be brought againt every one in both houses.

You see, it's people like you that make the rest of the world hate us. "Our **** doesn't stink because we're 'mericans" is exactly the kind of attitude that alienates the rest of the world.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by LegacyWins

Agreed, let the Supreme Court say it then; since they are the most qualified in our nation.

Looks like the patriot act is indeed constitutional because they didn't use their right of judicial review to overturn it.

They can't use judicial review unless a case involving the patriot act is brought before them.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by dont touch the hair

This is a completely invalid point, as the Nazis were exterminating the Jews to help purge society of any weakness and impurities and create the ideal Germanic race.

We are protecting our country and soldiers by holding these people captive, not killing them for unjust reasons. And speaking of why they don't and shouldn't get trials:



If you want to argue that they should have the right to trial by a jury of their peers, go for it. But, realize that you are ultimately giving every single person who is not a citizen of the U.S. rights that ONLY U.S. CITIZENS are granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is not a living document that should be trampled on; it is the concrete base of what is the most democratic nation in the history of humanity. The only way we can protect the freedoms that we enjoy is to protect our country and the rights of its citizens, first and foremost. Once we give non-U.S. citizens the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens, we start losing our sovereignty as those people will spit on our laws and traditions, then go into our court system to fight for their "right" to do whatever they want. This will ultimately lead to the destruction of everything we hold dear.

These captives have their inalienable rights to life (the reason they are not being slaughtered), but all others should not be granted, considering they are attacking and attempting to destroy the liberty that this country stands and fights for.

Inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Currently, 2/3 of them are being denied to gitmo inmates.

[InspectorChao]

Originally Posted by dont touch the hair

We are holding them as POWs, which keeps them from rejoining the fighting. They are not being treated inhumanely (well, the vast majority of them aren't); the complete opposite is true when our soldiers OR CITIZENS get captured.

POWs are generally captured after an armed conflict or they surrender. Many of the people in Guantanamo have been put there for other reasons, such as an anonymous tip that they may be involved with terrorists. By disagreeing with this decision, you are essentially saying that the U.S has the right to lock up whomever we want for as long as we want in the name of security.

[PKT1106]

Originally Posted by NorCalBaller88

You see, it's people like you that make the rest of the world hate us. "Our **** doesn't stink because we're 'mericans" is exactly the kind of attitude that alienates the rest of the world.

That is exactly the sentiment we should have considering we have bailed the rest of the world out of their **** multiple times. They owe us, BIG.

[dont touch the hair]

Originally Posted by madgoat

Inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Currently, 2/3 of them are being denied to gitmo inmates.

You are indeed correct, but you forgot something: they are deemed a threat to both our national security and denying those exact rights you mentioned to some people from their own country. Don't you think it might be in everyone's best interest to at least hold them? Like I said before, at least they have their lives, which is more than I can say for quite a few people they capture...

Originally Posted by InspectorChao

POWs are generally captured after an armed conflict or they surrender. Many of the people in Guantanamo have been put there for other reasons, such as an anonymous tip that they may be involved with terrorists. By disagreeing with this decision, you are essentially saying that the U.S has the right to lock up whomever we want for as long as we want in the name of security.

If many of the people being held in Gitmo were truly put in there for unjust reasons, where's your proof? I'm going to be honest and say that I don't have proof that you are incorrect, but maybe you have some that proves your statement.

Just because I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision doesn't mean that I think we can immorally lock up anyone under the sun just for our national security; there should be reasonable cause, as with any other prisoner/detainee. Don't confuse my thoughts and I assume that I really believe every one of them should be and is guilty just because they are there.

[Underfunded]

Originally Posted by PKT1106

That is exactly the sentiment we should have considering we have bailed the rest of the world out of their **** multiple times. They owe us, BIG.

The "rest of the world" discovered us, in case you forgot... Sure, we've done some good things in the past that has helped the world at large, but it is our duty to do this good. We certainly shouldn't be exalting ourselves because we've done good in the past, and we certainly shouldn't be using our past actions to justify our own attitudes.

[Underfunded]

Originally Posted by dont touch the hair

If many of the people being held in Gitmo were truly put in there for unjust reasons, where's your proof? I'm going to be honest and say that I don't have proof that you are incorrect, but maybe you have some that proves your statement.

Just because I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision doesn't mean that I think we can immorally lock up anyone under the sun just for our national security; there should be reasonable cause, as with any other prisoner/detainee. Don't confuse my thoughts and I assume that I really believe every one of them should be and is guilty just because they are there.

So now, we're getting rid of "innocent until proven guilty" as well? Why don't we just throw justice out the window, then we don't have to worry about contradicting it.

Reasonable cause is a relative term and it's highly dangerous to start accepting indefinte detainment based upon "reasonable cause". To protect against this, we normally have trials, and the whole justice system. To eliminate the system basically eliminates justice.

Which is kind of important, IMO.

[dont touch the hair]

Originally Posted by Underfunded

So now, we're getting rid of "innocent until proven guilty" as well? Why don't we just throw justice out the window, then we don't have to worry about contradicting it.

Reasonable cause is a relative term and it's highly dangerous to start accepting indefinte detainment based upon "reasonable cause". To protect against this, we normally have trials, and the whole justice system. To eliminate the system basically eliminates justice.

Which is kind of important, IMO.

This form of "unjust" imprisonment that you speak of is 100x more just than anything you or I would receive over there, so I'm not swayed by you speaking of "true" justice for POWs. And, until someone gives me proof of them being unrightfully held, they will remain POWs in my eyes. They were captured over there during a time of war. It's not like our military is picking people off the streets because someone yelled "terrorist".

We do hold trials to prevent such events from occuring to our own citizens. I do not believe that non-U.S. citizens should be granted the protection of our Consititution. If every person who was not a U.S. citizen were granted these rights that we hold so dear (obviously), little by little more and more rights would be given to them. Then, there would be no way to keep every single person from becoming a defacto U.S. citizen. At that point, if not before, they would all receive voting rights and our democracy would be ruined by people who do not give a crap about who we are and what we stand for. We would lose the ability to provide some semblance of peace and freedom, and also to fight for people unable to fight for themselves.

[Underfunded]

Originally Posted by dont touch the hair

This form of "unjust" imprisonment that you speak of is 100x more just than anything you or I would receive over there, so I'm not swayed by you speaking of "true" justice for POWs. And, until someone gives me proof of them being unrightfully held, they will remain POWs in my eyes. They were captured over there during a time of war. It's not like our military is picking people off the streets because someone yelled "terrorist".

We do hold trials to prevent such events from occuring to our own citizens. I do not believe that non-U.S. citizens should be granted the protection of our Consititution. If every person who was not a U.S. citizen were granted these rights that we hold so dear (obviously), little by little more and more rights would be given to them. Then, there would be no way to keep every single person from becoming a defacto U.S. citizen. At that point, if not before, they would all receive voting rights and our democracy would be ruined by people who do not give a crap about who we are and what we stand for. We would lose the ability to provide some semblance of peace and freedom, and also to fight for people unable to fight for themselves.

Oh, I think I get it. We're America, and we think everyone should be free, that freedom should exist throughout the world, but we should be more free than others.

[04prostock]

Originally Posted by PKT1106

31. Article XXXI - Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency Who predicted Katrina? Also, NO is a city bulit IN A BOWL OF LAND. It's lower than sea level, meaning IT WILL FLOOD AGAIN. Those stupid enough to stay there don't deserve anymore help.