So about Obama taking rights away...

[AWDstylez]

imported post

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_suspected_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.

 

[PaulBlart]

imported post

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_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.

 

[Pamiam]

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.

 

[Pamiam]

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.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

PaulBlart wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_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.

 

[xd45_in_TX]

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

 

[AWDstylez]

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.

 

[xd45_in_TX]

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.?

 

[stanicus]

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.

 

[xd45_in_TX]

imported post

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

 

[AWDstylez]

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.

 

[uncoolperson]

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.

 

[Legba]

imported post

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

-ljp

 

[Tomahawk]

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?

 

[Tomahawk]

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.

 

[Gordie]

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.

 

[Flyer22]

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.

 

[Tomahawk]

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.

 

[PaulBlart]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

PaulBlart wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_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

 

[Tomahawk]

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.