Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

[Macgawd]

* edited by a moderator * I care about my family and my neighbors. I care about my fellow Americans insofar as keeping them safe and their numbers high so that there's enough of us to defend this little corner of the world we live in.

What a silly bunch of appeal to emotion nonsense. You actually believe that your way of life will be threatened if they close Gitmo, or at least give the prisoners some legal recourse?

For me, the most frightening thing about the War on Terror™ isn't the prospect of being killed in a terrorist attack. I'm far more likely to be struck by lightning inside a crashing airplane, while scratching off a winning lotto ticket than I am to be killed by a terrorist.

No, what frightens me the most is how quickly and easily our elected officials are willing to sacrifice our freedoms and rights, all for the appearance of security. I was once dismayed at hearing a Senator (don't remember which one) claim that our Constitution was not a "suicide pact", meaning, that we should all be willing to give up a little bit of freedom in exchange for safety. It's sad that a Senator would think such a thing, knowing that those who framed the Constitution were willing to risk their very lives to establish the freedoms that document enshrines.

Give me liberty, or give me death.

=M=

[burgy]

The decision seems to be clear.

The constitution either means what it says -- or it does not.

In this case, SCOTUS judged right. But by so slim a margin!

[Zeluvia]

Bush laughed it off anyway = )

On September 18, 2006, Pastor John Hagee told NPR’s Terry Gross that “Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.” “New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God,” Hagee said, because “there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.”
source

This, from a group calling themselves Columbia Christians for Life:

"The image of the hurricane . . . with its eye already ashore at 12:32 p.m. Monday, August 29, looks like a fetus (unborn human baby) facing to the left (west) in the womb, in the early weeks of gestation (approx. 6 weeks)...

"Louisiana has 10 child-murder-by-abortion centers," the groups says, and "five are in New Orleans."

Philadelphia-based Repent America issued a statement calling Hurricane Katrina an "Act of God" that destroyed a "wicked city" just days before Southern Decadence.

The group blames the city's previous three mayors, and every citizen in New Orleans, for tolerating and welcoming such "wickedness" as Southern Decadence and Mardi Gras.

source

Clearly, all the tornadoes and flooding in the heartland this spring is god's wrath about our immoral treatment of Gitmo detainees.

It is amusing to me that the tsunami and Katrina both had plenty of people willing to explain the actions of god in regards to those events, but tornadoes/flooding in the heartland are just "weather".

Back to your thread = )

[Seasanctuary]

It is amusing to me that the tsunami and Katrina both had plenty of people willing to explain the actions of god in regards to those events, but tornadoes/flooding in the heartland are just "weather".

The Boy Scouts had better figure out their hidden sinfulness which prompted God to righteously smite them and kill a few with a tornado earlier this week.

(Parody.)

[Tladatsi]

We don't get to say that very often, unfortunately.

But Pilgrim, as far as I know both presidential candidates are hostile towards Bush's Gitmo, so things are looking good either way. Once Bush is gone, stuff will change.

No, McCain is all for it.

John McCain at Burlington County College

"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,"

© source where applicable

[Tladatsi]

wrong wrong wrong wrong.

You guys are equating domestic criminals with enemy combatants captured on the battlefield at war with our American military.

That is not what happened in many cases. Many of these guys (not all) were not captured by US military but captured by others for the bounty for turning in "terrorists".

It most definitely is NOT the same thing.
This is a military matter. The ones that were not enemy combatants have already been released, over 400 released without any charges. JR

If it IS a military matter, then they are covered under the Geneva Conventions. However they are not being held as enemy combatants. Enemy combatants have rights under the Geneva Conventions. However, some are being charged with murder. Well, under all legal theory, combatants are immune from charges of murder under the principle of Combatant Immunity which hold combatants basically have a legal license to kill, at least other combatants. If these combatants committed unlawful killings, then they need to be charged with war crimes, which is also covered under the Geneva Conventions. The only way to charge these men with the crime is to either treat them as civilian criminals or under the conditions of the Geneva Conventions. Either way, what Bush is trying to do is unlawful.

[Seasanctuary]

No, McCain is all for it.

John McCain at Burlington County College

"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,"

© source where applicable

Destroying America in the name of protecting Americans. Yeah, that's the last straw for me on McCain.

[$cirisme]

How can it be a good thing for the Supreme Court to say that the Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus applies to non-citizens, especially war time combatants, who are not even on American soil?

What if the Supreme court had issued such a ruling during WW II? Would you think that it would have been a good thing for German or Japanese prisoners of war to be given their day in court?

I know so many people hate Bush that they don't seem to be able to see the long term consequences of the Supreme Court's actions.

If these were Prisoners of War, they would have to be given the full treatment and processes of the Geneva Convention. The problem is that the Admin doesn't want to give them those rights, nor the rights afforded under the Constitution. The Admin shouldn't be allowed to keep anybody without some sort of check on their power. SCOTUS made the right call here.

If the Admin wants to declare them POWs, then they should get a declaration of war and just do it.

[Zeluvia]

BTW, if a military base in a foreign country is not "American Soil" then John McCain is not eligible to be President = )

[jordanriver]

The only way to charge these men with the crime is to either treat them as civilian criminals or under the conditions of the Geneva Conventions. Either way, what Bush is trying to do is unlawful.

Its not unlawful. Legislation was passed 65-34 in the Senate, 250-170 by the Congress and signed into law by President Bush making the Military Commissions Act law, and the democrats failed to get 60 votes for habeas corpus for the detainees. The President then acted within the law before this latest SC decision.

JR

[jordanriver]

What a silly bunch of appeal to emotion nonsense. You actually believe that your way of life will be threatened if they close Gitmo, or at least give the prisoners some legal recourse?

For me, the most frightening thing about the War on Terror™ isn't the prospect of being killed in a terrorist attack. I'm far more likely to be struck by lightning inside a crashing airplane, while scratching off a winning lotto ticket than I am to be killed by a terrorist.


=M=

You're probably right about the odds. With over 300 million people the odds that you will be specifically killed in a terrorist attack are highly against it and the odds against me being killed are also highly against it. But of course people win the lottery all the time, but I don't know if any of the winners were being struck by lightening inside a crashing airplane. I don't know how you would calculate such odds.
We've already had Americans killed in terrorist attacks and people all over the world are killed by terrorists all the time, (albeit the odds would be higher taking into account over six billion humans in the world), but nevertheless, Muslim terrorists do kill people.

So, what is acceptable. How much do the odds have to change before the situation becomes intolerable. Would you accept, say, the occasional bombing of a bus as acceptable. The odds would still be high that any specific American citizen would be one of the victims (it may not seem all that acceptable though to the actual families of the victims though). Of course I could say, well, that happened in NYC or some other major coastal city so it doesn't really affect me.

Is a situation like that 'tolerable' enough to allow your interpretation of the Constitution and grant detainees a chance to be freed by ACLU lawyers. Would you say, just the occasional suicide bombing is not enough to sacrifice any of our liberties. How about a daily suicide attack in every state. Now that would lower the odds but is it enough to sacrifice our liberties. Or how about instead of a daily suicide attack in each state, maybe just a dirty bomb in a major metropolitan area only once a year. Is that acceptable. The odds would still be pretty high that you are I would be one of the victims, seeing as how there are 300+ million American lives to spare. Its still high odds against our specific demise, but, lessee, lets say a couple of thousand people die, (thats still less that the WTC Muslim terrorist attack deathtoll) thats still pretty good, the odds would then be 1,500,000 to one against being one of the victims. Are those odds still high enough to make it not worth sacrificing our liberties.

IOW, how much is acceptable. Is there any line you would draw , where you could say, ok, this much and no more. Is there some number of victims that would make the situation so intolerable that drastic action would have to be taken to make sure the Islamic terrorist attacks stop (as in giving up a few liberties).

Or is it that there is no number that would make it worth giving up any liberties. Does "give me liberty or give me death" mean its worth it no matter how many Americans are killed.

Give me a number. How many deaths.

JR

[jordanriver]

[QUOTE]

BTW, I've filed a complaint with the NSA, FBI, and CIA letting them know I think you are a terror suspect.

I wouldn't be surprised. Its not something I would do to you, these Tweb debates aren't that important to me.

But if you want to win your point that bad,

you got it.

The forum's all yours.

enjoy.

JR

[Pilgrim]

[QUOTE=jordanriver;2360953]

I wouldn't be surprised. Its not something I would do to you, these Tweb debates aren't that important to me.

But if you want to win your point that bad,

you got it.

The forum's all yours.

enjoy.

JR

Hear that? It was the sound of the point flying completely over JR's head.

[Tladatsi]

Its not unlawful. Legislation was passed 65-34 in the Senate, 250-170 by the Congress and signed into law by President Bush making the Military Commissions Act law, and the democrats failed to get 60 votes for habeas corpus for the detainees. The President then acted within the law before this latest SC decision.

JR

Which is the provision the SCOTUS just declared unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, it is unlawful.

[Philosophickle]

No, McCain is all for it.

John McCain at Burlington County College

"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,"

© source where applicable

So much for the straight-talk express.