So about Obama taking rights away...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

pow's have very limited rights.

Click to expand...

Actually, under the Geneva Conventions, POWs have very well-defined rights.

But these prisoners have been denied POW status.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

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.?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

pow's have very limited rights.

Click to expand...

Actually, under the Geneva Conventions, POWs have very well-defined rights.

But these prisoners have been denied POW status.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting conundrum. But lets be clear that these folks have been getting trials, but they ar military trials and they have not been particularly speedy in coming. As has been pointed out the GC does not actually cover these folks because they are not combatants as defined under the GC, but rather essentially detached armed combatants. They have never agreed to the GC protections either for themselves or others.

But they are still humans, and a large part of our cultural heritage is that we recognize that humans have rights and we value human life. As such it violates everything we stand for to ignore the rights of the Gitmo prisoners.

But they are not just street criminals. Just as there is no definition in the GC for these people, there is nothing in criminal or civil law in the US that covers armed combat outside the jurisdiction of the courts. SO if they are brought to US soil, on what charges would they be held? If there are no valid charges, then they must be released, If they are released, are we to release them onto the streets here? Many of the countries they came from have already told us they will not take them back. So are we to over fly those countries and just shove these guys out with a parachute? I think not.

It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.

I certainly support reaching some kind of end to this situation that is consistent with our values as a culture. It does not matter if the cultural values of these people is not in alignment with our own, what matters is what WE do. For me the issue at Gitmo was the torture, and the time it was taking to get these people to trial, not the type of trials (military or civilian).

The way to close the place is to get the trials finished, and process the people accordingly. But while they are awaiting trial, they should be afforded military rights. That might mean that we have to determine as a matter of military law that they are not guilty of any crime under military law due to the nature of the war itself. Our opposition in that war is a confederation of individuals, not an organized nation. So one would expect to find a lot of people without uniforms.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.

Click to expand...

And you wouldn't? You just got thrown in asecretjail on SUSPICION of terrorism where you sat for years,notknowing if you'll ever see the light of day again, let alone get an actual trial... and when they let you go because they can'teven prove the original charges that you never should have been held for in the first place,you're going to be... happy with them?

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.

Click to expand...

Nothing to worry about folks. Recently release photos of the Chosen One suggest he is all about his toys.

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't know about getting a fair trial, butin Canada, Charliewould get welfare and free health care.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.

Click to expand...

And you wouldn't? You just got thrown in asecretjail on SUSPICION of terrorism where you sat for years,notknowing if you'll ever see the light of day again, let alone get an actual trial... and when they let you go because they can'teven prove the original charges that you never should have been held for in the first place,you're going to be... happy with them?

Click to expand...

A terrorist SUICIDE bombing. That says a LOT about his actual motivations.

Quit screwing around and just shoot these guys.

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.

Click to expand...

And you wouldn't? You just got thrown in asecretjail on SUSPICION of terrorism where you sat for years,notknowing if you'll ever see the light of day again, let alone get an actual trial... and when they let you go because they can'teven prove the original charges that you never should have been held for in the first place,you're going to be... happy with them?

Click to expand...

A terrorist SUICIDE bombing. That says a LOT about his actual motivations.

Quit screwing around and just shoot these guys.

Click to expand...

+1 the only thing these terrorist have the right to is a speedy hanging.

imported post

Yeah, gonna have to agree with the bullet to the head....except for one thing. What if they "didn't do it"?

Ever see In The Name of the Father? England had an anti-terrorist act that allowed them to incarcerate anyone suspected of terrorist acts without charging them with a crime. A lot of innocent Irish men died in prison. This is why we have due process.

imported post

They weren’t out promoting good will and peace through God. They wereactively associating with and engagingin operations with other terrorists whose marching orders was tomurder innocent people of the world in their twisted belief of God. They knew what they were doing and from whom their murderousorders came from. These scum bags can'twait for their release to reengage in acts of murder. I hope no one thinks they are harmless poor soles and haverepented orbeen rehabilitated.They are radical ideologists whose sole purpose is to kill us. They are banking onrelease tobecome productive members of any society? No way in hell. They won’t be getting out taking jobsasWal-Mart greeters unless they have orders to strap on as a suicide bomber. I refuse to fall into the PC BS of this; they are terrorists plan and simple and need to be eradicated.

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.

Click to expand...

And you wouldn't? You just got thrown in asecretjail on SUSPICION of terrorism where you sat for years,notknowing if you'll ever see the light of day again, let alone get an actual trial... and when they let you go because they can'teven prove the original charges that you never should have been held for in the first place,you're going to be... happy with them?

Click to expand...

A terrorist SUICIDE bombing. That says a LOT about his actual motivations.

Quit screwing around and just shoot these guys.

Click to expand...

I know it's the American way, but you can't cry about how the government constantly violates your rights too much,and then turn around and cry about how it doesn't violate someone elses' enough.

Tomahawk said it already...

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.

Click to expand...

I love the inconsistancy in this community. Gives me something to lol at and reminds me of this quote...

“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.”

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.

Click to expand...

And you wouldn't? You just got thrown in asecretjail on SUSPICION of terrorism where you sat for years,notknowing if you'll ever see the light of day again, let alone get an actual trial... and when they let you go because they can'teven prove the original charges that you never should have been held for in the first place,you're going to be... happy with them?

Click to expand...

A terrorist SUICIDE bombing. That says a LOT about his actual motivations.

Quit screwing around and just shoot these guys.

Click to expand...

I know it's the American way, but you can't cry about how the government constantly violates your rights too much,and then turn around and cry about how it doesn't violate someone elses' enough.

Tomahawk said it already...

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.

Click to expand...

I love the inconsistancy in this community. Gives me something to lol at and reminds me of this quote...

“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.”

Click to expand...

Are we comparing apples to Oranges? Weren’t the Nuremburg trails for those who embraced state sponsored war crimes, killing millions (Holocaust). Terrorists commit their crimes against humanity of their own accord, they have no state sponsored leadership, and the cowards have no country. Terrorists are individuals who follow other CRAZED individuals. So remaining PC will allow the terrorists to be remembered in history of creating a second Holocaust? And the U.S. as having the means to end it but fearing world opinion opted to side with the new world order of PC.

This statement “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow," has no place in the defense terrorism. I always learned an “ism” was BAD! Are we saying its good when ending with the word terror? Times are different then in 1945, the terrorist is not a uniformed combatant following its countries orders to commit mass murder.

imported post

Squid13 wrote:

Yeah, gonna have to agree with the bullet to the head....except for one thing. What if they "didn't do it"?

Ever see In The Name of the Father? England had an anti-terrorist act that allowed them to incarcerate anyone suspected of terrorist acts without charging them with a crime. A lot of innocent Irish men died in prison. This is why we have due process.

Click to expand...

Here's a useful rule of thumb. If you're caught on a battlefield, out of uniform, armed or operating in material support (radio operator, supply clerk, etc.) of people engaged in trying to kill Americans at home or abroad, you get a bullet in the back of the head.

Being an unlawful combatant is a choice.

Choices have consequences.

Ask Skorzeny's Brandenburgers who were caught in US uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.

Click to expand...

And you wouldn't? You just got thrown in asecretjail on SUSPICION of terrorism where you sat for years,notknowing if you'll ever see the light of day again, let alone get an actual trial... and when they let you go because they can'teven prove the original charges that you never should have been held for in the first place,you're going to be... happy with them?

Click to expand...

A terrorist SUICIDE bombing. That says a LOT about his actual motivations.

Quit screwing around and just shoot these guys.

Click to expand...

I know it's the American way, but you can't cry about how the government constantly violates your rights too much,and then turn around and cry about how it doesn't violate someone elses' enough.

Tomahawk said it already...

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.

Click to expand...

I love the inconsistancy in this community. Gives me something to lol at and reminds me of this quote...

“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.”

Click to expand...

If you're caught on the battlefield, out of uniform, engaged in combat operations, you have the right to be SHOT.

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

Squid13 wrote:

Yeah, gonna have to agree with the bullet to the head....except for one thing. What if they "didn't do it"?

Ever see In The Name of the Father? England had an anti-terrorist act that allowed them to incarcerate anyone suspected of terrorist acts without charging them with a crime. A lot of innocent Irish men died in prison. This is why we have due process.

Click to expand...

Here's a useful rule of thumb. If you're caught on a battlefield, out of uniform, armed or operating in material support (radio operator, supply clerk, etc.) of people engaged in trying to kill Americans at home or abroad, you get a bullet in the back of the head.

Being an unlawful combatant is a choice.

Choices have consequences.

Ask Skorzeny's Brandenburgers who were caught in US uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that all of those at GITMO were captured under these circumstances? Is that a fact? Can you cite refferences? I'm just curious, because your post has little to do with my post that you quoted.

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.

Click to expand...

And you wouldn't? You just got thrown in asecretjail on SUSPICION of terrorism where you sat for years,notknowing if you'll ever see the light of day again, let alone get an actual trial... and when they let you go because they can'teven prove the original charges that you never should have been held for in the first place,you're going to be... happy with them?

Click to expand...

A terrorist SUICIDE bombing. That says a LOT about his actual motivations.

Quit screwing around and just shoot these guys.

Click to expand...

I know it's the American way, but you can't cry about how the government constantly violates your rights too much,and then turn around and cry about how it doesn't violate someone elses' enough.

Tomahawk said it already...

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.

Click to expand...

I love the inconsistancy in this community. Gives me something to lol at and reminds me of this quote...

“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.”

Click to expand...

If you're caught on the battlefield, out of uniform, engaged in combat operations, you have the right to be SHOT.

Click to expand...

Cannot agree with you more! People here who defend terrorists need to get a grip. I agree that some basic human rights are violated there and it certainly isnt a great thing, but these people didn't consider anyones human rights when they purposely target and murder innocent civilians. These are not criminals and certainly not "soliders who just follow the orders". They have to be dealt with accordingly. If this someone is caught armed, shooting at soldiers or civilians without a uniform or clear orders from any organizedmilitary command of any country, they are NOT soliders and therefore cannot be treated as POW. They know what they are doing and what the results of their actions are. If you give them "due process" half of them will be released because of amounts of red tape our PC society creates and continue killing again, not speaking of billions of dollars it will cost us to deal with it. I'm fine with bullet to the head. Oh yeah, make it a rule to execute them with 22 LR - that will help us save some money which will come in handy with the crisis going on.By the way, look at Israel - small country which dealt with this problem for many years at much larger scale. The first time they managed to push back and draw the linewas when they got so fed up with terrorists killing their people, that they created squads which killed terrorsts on the spot, in any country of the world, without any bullshit trials, easy and simple. That's the only way to deal with the problem. You don't reason with rabid animal, you shoot it.

P.S. Even though i generally like and respect liberitarian ideas and values, that's where i have problems with them. Some people get so much into this unlimited rights for everyone, regardless of their crimes, that they start sounding like they work for ACLU or some other rabid liberal group like that... Be realistic people - world isn't perfect!

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

It should not be lost in the discussion that there is already at least one case were one of these guys committed a terrorist bombing after being released.

Click to expand...

And you wouldn't? You just got thrown in asecretjail on SUSPICION of terrorism where you sat for years,notknowing if you'll ever see the light of day again, let alone get an actual trial... and when they let you go because they can'teven prove the original charges that you never should have been held for in the first place,you're going to be... happy with them?

Click to expand...

A terrorist SUICIDE bombing. That says a LOT about his actual motivations.

Quit screwing around and just shoot these guys.

Click to expand...

I know it's the American way, but you can't cry about how the government constantly violates your rights too much,and then turn around and cry about how it doesn't violate someone elses' enough.

Tomahawk said it already...

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.

Click to expand...

I love the inconsistancy in this community. Gives me something to lol at and reminds me of this quote...

“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.”

Click to expand...

If you're caught on the battlefield, out of uniform, engaged in combat operations, you have the right to be SHOT.

Click to expand...

Cannot agree with you more! People here who defend terrorists need to get a grip. I agree that some basic human rights are violated there and it certainly isnt a great thing, but these people didn't consider anyones human rights when they purposely target and murder innocent civilians. These are not criminals and certainly not "soliders who just follow the orders". They have to be dealt with accordingly. If this someone is caught armed, shooting at soldiers or civilians without a uniform or clear orders from any organizedmilitary command of any country, they are NOT soliders and therefore cannot be treated as POW. They know what they are doing and what the results of their actions are. If you give them "due process" half of them will be released because of amounts of red tape our PC society creates and continue killing again, not speaking of billions of dollars it will cost us to deal with it. I'm fine with bullet to the head. Oh yeah, make it a rule to execute them with 22 LR - that will help us save some money which will come in handy with the crisis going on.By the way, look at Israel - small country which dealt with this problem for many years at much larger scale. The first time they managed to push back and draw the linewas when they got so fed up with terrorists killing their people, that they created squads which killed terrorsts on the spot, in any country of the world, without any bull@#$% trials, easy and simple. That's the only way to deal with the problem. You don't reason with rabid animal, you shoot it.

P.S. Even though i generally like and respect liberitarian ideas and values, that's where i have problems with them. Some people get so much into this unlimited rights for everyone, regardless of their crimes, that they start sounding like they work for ACLU or some other rabid liberal group like that... Be realistic people - world isn't perfect!

Click to expand...

i could be wrong but i do not believe the LP party believes people in other countries have US constitutional rights

http://www.lp.org