Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 156

Thread: So about Obama taking rights away...

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/...ted_terrorists



    Funny, I thought he was supposed to be the guy taking rights away and turning this nation into Soviet Russia? Instead, one of the first things he does it release prisoners held unconstitutionally and begins tearing down the highly-unconstitutional Dubya war on rights... I mean... war on "tare-uh" policy.



    What happened? I thought the world was supposed to end when he took over and we were all going to jail forver.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/...anamo_al_qaida

    people picked up in foreign lands never had US constitutional rights, only if they were picked up in the US.

    not sure what "rights" you think people from other countries have. they certainly don't have US constitutional rights unless they are on US soil.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    The government would be nuts to institute a ban. They would certainly be overthrown. Even Obama, the most inexperienced empty suit ever elected, should be able to recognize that.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote
    the first things he does it release prisoners
    Those are dangerous people, and he is jeopardizing the safety of others in doing so. That doesn't foster confidence in this administration.


  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    PaulBlart wrote:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/...anamo_al_qaida

    people picked up in foreign lands never had US constitutional rights, only if they were picked up in the US.

    not sure what "rights" you think people from other countries have. they certainly don't have US constitutional rights unless they are on US soil.
    The Constitution doesn't grant right, it just acknowledges they exist.

    What happened to "innate" "natural" rights?

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    What due process did these "terrorists" get?



    Don't be stupid. You know it's a very short hop (we're passed even the skip and jump already) to calling gun owners "terrorists" and we all would have been down there too.



    So instead of abusing the highly, highly unconstitutional provisions and powers Bush has created, Obama is dismantling them.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Cypress, Texas, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    What happened? I thought the world was supposed to end
    Didn't you get the memo, the date was changed to December 21, 2012

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    xd45_in_TX wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    What happened? I thought the world was supposed to end
    Didn't you get the memo, the date was changed to December 21, 2012


    hahaha There was a topic on that that went like 100+ pages on honda-tech.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Cypress, Texas, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    The Constitution doesn't grant right, it just acknowledges they exist.

    What happened to "innate" "natural" rights?

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    What due process did these "terrorists" get?
    I agree with you about the rights of people, but what I don't understand and haven't heard about is what they are going to do with the detainees. Will they get a speedy trial or will they just be released into the U.S.?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Noblesville, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    xd45_in_TX wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The Constitution doesn't grant right, it just acknowledges they exist.

    What happened to "innate" "natural" rights?

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    What due process did these "terrorists" get?
    I agree with you about the rights of people, but what I don't understand and haven't heard about is what they are going to do with the detainees. Will they get a speedy trial or will they just be released into the U.S.?
    They are coming to live with you. Government heard you had an extra room once they took all your guns, bullets and pixie dust away.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Cypress, Texas, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    That very funny, hahaha! I was thinking Connecticut, you know kinda like a vaction for them away from the desert heat.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    xd45_in_TX wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The Constitution doesn't grant right, it just acknowledges they exist.

    What happened to "innate" "natural" rights?

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    What due process did these "terrorists" get?
    I agree with you about the rights of people, but what I don't understand and haven't heard about is what they are going to do with the detainees. Will they get a speedy trial or will they just be released into the U.S.?


    They can come live with me for all I care. It hasn't been PROVED they've done anything wrong, so why shouldn't they go free? While they're free maybe the government can start the investigations and then maybe detain them for trial, kind of like what should have happened in the first place.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    xd45_in_TX wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The Constitution doesn't grant right, it just acknowledges they exist.

    What happened to "innate" "natural" rights?

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    What due process did these "terrorists" get?
    I agree with you about the rights of people, but what I don't understand and haven't heard about is what they are going to do with the detainees. Will they get a speedy trial or will they just be released into the U.S.?


    They can come live with me for all I care. It hasn't been PROVED they've done anything wrong, so why shouldn't they go free? While they're free maybe the government can start the investigations and then maybe detain them for trial, kind of like what should have happened in the first place.
    pow's have very limited rights.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I understood that some european country was going to take custody ofthe "gitmo" detainees until their legal status was finally resolved.

    -ljp

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Pamiam wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote
    the first things he does it release prisoners
    Those are dangerous people, and he is jeopardizing the safety of others in doing so. That doesn't foster confidence in this administration.
    How do you know they are dangerous? Can you prove it in a courtroom? If so, what are you afraid of? If not, what grounds for holding them?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    xd45_in_TX wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The Constitution doesn't grant right, it just acknowledges they exist.

    What happened to "innate" "natural" rights?

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    What due process did these "terrorists" get?
    I agree with you about the rights of people, but what I don't understand and haven't heard about is what they are going to do with the detainees. Will they get a speedy trial or will they just be released into the U.S.?


    They can come live with me for all I care. It hasn't been PROVED they've done anything wrong, so why shouldn't they go free? While they're free maybe the government can start the investigations and then maybe detain them for trial, kind of like what should have happened in the first place.
    pow's have very limited rights.
    Actually, under the Geneva Conventions, POWs have very well-defined rights.

    But these prisoners have been denied POW status.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    That's because under the Geneva Conventions, terrorists are illegal combatants and therefore are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. An illegal combatant has no legal protections. If you want to get technical, they could legally be executed on the spot, no POW, no trial, nothing.

    To be protected by the Geneva Conventions, you must be a military member that is readily identifiable as a member, usually by the wearing of a uniform.

    This is all covered very thoroughly in basic training.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Pamiam wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote
    the first things he does it release prisoners
    Those are dangerous people, and he is jeopardizing the safety of others in doing so. That doesn't foster confidence in this administration.
    How do you know they are dangerous? Can you prove it in a courtroom? If so, what are you afraid of? If not, what grounds for holding them?
    The grounds for holding them: A goodly number of those people have been captured on the battlefield actively fighting against American forces. Others are admitted members of various branches of Al-Qaeda.

    As far as trying them in court: that's one of the most idiotic ideas ever devised. To understand why, just imagine if FDR had set up special courts to try as a regular criminalevery single POW captured during WW2. When people are shooting at you, you respond with lethal force, notcriminal procedure.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Flyer22 wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Pamiam wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote
    the first things he does it release prisoners
    Those are dangerous people, and he is jeopardizing the safety of others in doing so. That doesn't foster confidence in this administration.
    How do you know they are dangerous? Can you prove it in a courtroom? If so, what are you afraid of? If not, what grounds for holding them?
    The grounds for holding them: A goodly number of those people have been captured on the battlefield actively fighting against American forces. Others are admitted members of various branches of Al-Qaeda.

    As far as trying them in court: that's one of the most idiotic ideas ever devised. To understand why, just imagine if FDR had set up special courts to try as a regular criminalevery single POW captured during WW2. When people are shooting at you, you respond with lethal force, notcriminal procedure.
    Again: Either they are POWs who deserve POW treatment, or they are criminals who deserve a fair hearing.

    No matter what you think, you do not have the right to simply snatch somebody up and throw them in a dungeon forever with no hearing or process.

    Even "illegal enemy combatants", which are by definition criminals, get a trip to a courtroom.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    PaulBlart wrote:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/...anamo_al_qaida

    people picked up in foreign lands never had US constitutional rights, only if they were picked up in the US.

    not sure what "rights" you think people from other countries have. they certainly don't have US constitutional rights unless they are on US soil.
    The Constitution doesn't grant right, it just acknowledges they exist.

    What happened to "innate" "natural" rights?

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    What due process did these "terrorists" get?
    only to people on US soil

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Flyer22 wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    How do you know they are dangerous? Can you prove it in a courtroom? If so, what are you afraid of? If not, what grounds for holding them?
    The grounds for holding them: A goodly number of those people have been captured on the battlefield actively fighting against American forces. Others are admitted members of various branches of Al-Qaeda.
    I have to comment on this again. You and I don't know under what circumstances these people were captured. All we have to go by is what the government is telling us. The purpose of a trial is to find facts and expose them to the public, so that the government may not act in secret and throw people in dungeons without charge or a way to speak out.

    If foreigners have no legal rights because they are not American citizens and not on American soil, than that means it is legal for you to go to Canada and start hunting French Canadians, so long as you can get back across the border before you are caught, and the Canadians are expected to tolerate this lest we invade or bomb them "in self defense".

    It also means that foreigners are not human and therefore have no unalienable rights, at least not when we are pissed off and looking for revenge for some terrorist attack or another.

    Again, if these people are just POWs, than they need to be granted POW status and given the benefits thereof, including release upon the cesation of hostilities (whenever that is). But the government has stated repeatedly that they are not POWs, but rather "illegal combatants", which makes them criminal suspects.

    We get upset when our government acts in a lawless manner toward gun owners, OCr's and citizens in general, but for some reason we expect it to act lawless when engaged in military or covert actions, and then we fail to see the connection between the two.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    And while I'm at it, I am fairly certain that Obama will show little or no respect for the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. Like most of his ilk, he will at best shy away from the subject for political reasons, and at worst sign every piece of anti-self-defense legislation that crosses his desk, cheerfully.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Weatherford, TX
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    So I have to agree with the fact that we were wrong in the way we treated these detainees, but I disagree that this in any way shows that Obama is something special. All presidents do some things right and some things wrong. To side with someone on every issue is as ignorant as to oppose them on every issue. So he did some good. Lets hope it continues. I doubt it. I feel that he'll be one of the worst presidents in my lifetime. That's my oppinion, and until he proves me wrong, I'll stand by it. If you think that he is wrong to close GITMO, then he has already started off on the wrong foot.

  23. #23
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    And while I'm at it, I am fairly certain that Obama will show little or no respect for the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. Like most of his ilk, he will at best shy away from the subject for political reasons, and at worst sign every piece of anti-self-defense legislation that crosses his desk, cheerfully.
    He certainly won't be vetoing anti-gun legislation.

    What I'm far more worried about is his choice in cabinet. Appointing people like Eric Holder is what has me so scared. Holder is rabidly anti-gun and co-signed an Amicus Curiae brief with Janet Reno supporting DC's handgun ban and opposing Heller (and later the majority opinion's) assertion that an outright ban is unconstitutional.

    The other folks I fear are all of the Senators and Representatives who will be sponsoring anti-gun legislation time and time again until it passes. They're so mad that the AWB of 1994 sunset, they're just itching to get it back stronger than ever, and permanent.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    I have to comment on this again. You and I don't know under what circumstances these people were captured. All we have to go by is what the government is telling us. The purpose of a trial is to find facts and expose them to the public, so that the government may not act in secret and throw people in dungeons without charge or a way to speak out.

    If foreigners have no legal rights because they are not American citizens and not on American soil, than that means it is legal for you to go to Canada and start hunting French Canadians, so long as you can get back across the border before you are caught, and the Canadians are expected to tolerate this lest we invade or bomb them "in self defense".

    It also means that foreigners are not human and therefore have no unalienable rights, at least not when we are pissed off and looking for revenge for some terrorist attack or another.

    Again, if these people are just POWs, than they need to be granted POW status and given the benefits thereof, including release upon the cesation of hostilities (whenever that is). But the government has stated repeatedly that they are not POWs, but rather "illegal combatants", which makes them criminal suspects.

    We get upset when our government acts in a lawless manner toward gun owners, OCr's and citizens in general, but for some reason we expect it to act lawless when engaged in military or covert actions, and then we fail to see the connection between the two.

    Hey, look, some body gets it.

    As anti-gun as Obama may me, he'll be hard pressed to do the damage to rights that Bush has done. The funny thing is how all the "conservatives" (read: authoritarians) are going ballistic about how horrible he's going to be, when he hasn't done anything wrong yet... but they look back at the Bush presidency and just can't see anything wrong with it, "but he was so pro-gun" :quirky It's like nothing else matters.


  25. #25
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    uncoolperson wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    xd45_in_TX wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    The Constitution doesn't grant right, it just acknowledges they exist.

    What happened to "innate" "natural" rights?

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    What due process did these "terrorists" get?
    I agree with you about the rights of people, but what I don't understand and haven't heard about is what they are going to do with the detainees. Will they get a speedy trial or will they just be released into the U.S.?


    They can come live with me for all I care. It hasn't been PROVED they've done anything wrong, so why shouldn't they go free? While they're free maybe the government can start the investigations and then maybe detain them for trial, kind of like what should have happened in the first place.
    pow's have very limited rights.
    Actually, under the Geneva Conventions, POWs have very well-defined rights.

    But these prisoners have been denied POW status.
    Taliban? Yeah, POWs maybe.

    Al Qaeda? Exactly what "country" do they represent? What uniform do they wear? When have they EVER abided by the Geneva Conventions themselves? The President has the right to order "reprisals", and FDR made no secret of the fact that he would do so against the Germans if necessary. We should render Geneva Convention protections only to those who render them to us. What part of the Geneva Conventions allows you to saw somebody's head off alive OR dead?

    We find ourselves in the position of Britain or Canada if Charles Manson was sending killers from the US (and other places) into their countries to commit random murders. Is Squeaky Fromm a member of the US military? Do they represent the US? What if Charley sends people to kill French troops in Chad? What parts of the Geneva Convention would apply to them?

    The truth is that this is a situation probably unprecedented since the "Old Man of the Mountains" sent the "Assassins" (Hashishins) against the Mongols. The Mongols solved that problem and completely without the concepts of "collateral damage" or "disproportionality" in their lexicon.

    Applying previous standards to these freaks is a losing proposition, ESPECIALLY treating them like POWs.

    At BEST, they should be treated the way the Soviets treated SS men. They're not soldiers, but to treat them like car thieves or O.J. is as crazy as anything Al Qaeda says. They're out of uniform. SHOOT them within 72 hours unless they have some intelligence value. Then shoot THEM when that value is over.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •