http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm (I noticed the spelling and grammar errors too)
So kill 'em all and let Yahweh\Allah sort 'em out, huh G-Dub?
So kill 'em all and let Yahweh\Allah sort 'em out, huh G-Dub?
Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
- Thread starter 4G63
- Start date
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war then it was reinstated after the war. I don't remember from my history class if it was suspended during WWII but I doubt it was. I have no problem with the "kill'em all, let Allah sort them out" option, they do it to us anyway. I wouldn't mind if our side fought this war by their rules for a change, I mean, how much more can they hate us anyway?
The only problem I have is that if habeas corpus is suspended during the duration of this war, when will this war end for it to be reinstated? W. once said it was, not just a long war, but a multi-generational war, so I don't see a clear ending in sight like during the Civil War and WWII it was the unconditional surrender of the enemy. I really, really doubt the way things are post-WWII with the UN and "negotiations" and crap like that, that any western country will once again go to war looking for unconditional surrender of the enemy, of course, our enemies will have no problem going to war against us looking for our complete destruction. Anyway, suspension of habeas corpus, bad.
Oh, one thing, I forgot, I really don't believe that the bill of rights applies outside our borders to non-citizens. The bill of rights was passed to protect citizens of this country from their own government. If a foreign terrorist suspect is caught here in the U.S., he's in the jurisdiction of some law enforcement agency so it should apply and he should get all the legal protections under the law and if convicted execute him. If he's caught somewhere else, he's not in the jurisdiction of any American law enforcement, those protections shouldn't apply, so fuck'em.:2 cents:
The only problem I have is that if habeas corpus is suspended during the duration of this war, when will this war end for it to be reinstated? W. once said it was, not just a long war, but a multi-generational war, so I don't see a clear ending in sight like during the Civil War and WWII it was the unconditional surrender of the enemy. I really, really doubt the way things are post-WWII with the UN and "negotiations" and crap like that, that any western country will once again go to war looking for unconditional surrender of the enemy, of course, our enemies will have no problem going to war against us looking for our complete destruction. Anyway, suspension of habeas corpus, bad.
Oh, one thing, I forgot, I really don't believe that the bill of rights applies outside our borders to non-citizens. The bill of rights was passed to protect citizens of this country from their own government. If a foreign terrorist suspect is caught here in the U.S., he's in the jurisdiction of some law enforcement agency so it should apply and he should get all the legal protections under the law and if convicted execute him. If he's caught somewhere else, he's not in the jurisdiction of any American law enforcement, those protections shouldn't apply, so fuck'em.:2 cents:
Oh I see. Well I don't agree with that either, but now I understand what Roughneck meant.
But regardless of president of the past Habeas Corpus gives us the right to question capture. So if that can be suspended or changed then so can the Bill of Rights, and I have championed removing the Right to Bear Arms. So if anything Bush suspending Habeas Corpus gives me hope that one day firearms will be made illegal.
And I'd like to reiterate that I am a United States Citizen and it's my right and Duty to question my leaders, to keep them straight. And I did serve in the Army, so as much as people think this is stupid, I have already fought for my country and I would do so again. But I would never torture or hold a person with no evidence of a crime committed.
That might have been one of the only black marks on Abraham Lincoln. He might of thought is just let guilty people go free, but most of our rights can have that effect and I don't know if it was even needed.
During World War II Japanese Americans were interred at concentration camps. The government admitted much latter that it was wrong, (By Ronald Ragan no less!!!) and it was. The constitutionality of it is still questionable and the government did some underhanded things when the case came before the Supreme Court.
do you want another cival war cause that is what will happen if anyone tries to disarm the american people id like to see anyone try and come take any of my guns away. not gonna happen ever. i know some people dont like guns but you know what "stay away from them" noone is asking you to go get one. but its no other persons right to tell me that i cant have one or that i dont need one thats bullshit. I dont like a lot of things but i just stay away from them if you were in the army like you say then you know the importance of weapons of all kinds. anyhoo im done with all that and ill be done with this thread too.
Yeah those bullets felt good, tearing through my flesh, so was the feeling of putting a bullet in a person.
Fuck this and Fuck all of you.
nice you're a real grown up arent you no need for that that was just my opinion.
Its just that the capitalist way of life and our gun-crazy public is just.. so okay with its own people, and so very *not* to everybody else. Seriously, you ever take a step back and ask why we need even half of what we have? Huge stockpiles of weapons, food and materials? A violent, paranoid society that doesnt know whats going on the next city over, let alone in the rest of the world.
There's no need to suspend any law for justice or any other guise of greed and powermongering. What happened years ago with Lincoln doesnt apply now. People dont believe they can change government this era of tazers, body armor and tear gas.
glk35, you know full well they're going to 'disarm' us one day. First itll be the small stuff that's already happening, bans on smoking, fatty foods and stringent laws on everything else that gets manufactured. You could look at it as a consolidation of power at the top of the hierarchy, or lowering violent attacks/deaths in the public eye. Maybe so. It could work 50/50.. in that yeah sure there IS less crime with less weapons out there.. or absolutely not, look what prohibition did to the alcohol industry. You create a new, huge black market that cant be policed.
Eh, the lectures or debates on these subjects would take hours to reach a half decent conclusion. Ah well, change can be painful when people just want their guns, slayer CD's and G-Dub. :shrug: I'm with 4G's last post on this one. F everybody cuz I dont agree with you.
There's no need to suspend any law for justice or any other guise of greed and powermongering. What happened years ago with Lincoln doesnt apply now. People dont believe they can change government this era of tazers, body armor and tear gas.
glk35, you know full well they're going to 'disarm' us one day. First itll be the small stuff that's already happening, bans on smoking, fatty foods and stringent laws on everything else that gets manufactured. You could look at it as a consolidation of power at the top of the hierarchy, or lowering violent attacks/deaths in the public eye. Maybe so. It could work 50/50.. in that yeah sure there IS less crime with less weapons out there.. or absolutely not, look what prohibition did to the alcohol industry. You create a new, huge black market that cant be policed.
Eh, the lectures or debates on these subjects would take hours to reach a half decent conclusion. Ah well, change can be painful when people just want their guns, slayer CD's and G-Dub. :shrug: I'm with 4G's last post on this one. F everybody cuz I dont agree with you.
Aww what, 4G63 closed his account?
Now thats something I can agree with. As a former soldier, I salute you 4G63.4G63 said:
Aww what, 4G63 closed his account?
Now thats something I can agree with. As a former soldier, I salute you 4G63.
As do I.
From what 4G63 told me of his military exploits; he gave a GREAT deal to his country. Far more then most soldiers do.
I have tremendous respect for his opinions on this and all subjects that relate to the American government and the U.S. Constitution.
When a man with as significant a war record as 4G63 has talks about guns - I (for one) listen.
I am truly sorry that this subject may have caused him to leave Freeones. I liked him very much.
Anyone have a link to this story from a credible news service? This sounds serious.
Here's a broad spectrum of info & opinion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5134328.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6518979.stm
kind of sad really - don't how changing america's laws now, regardless of what happened during the civil war etc., in this manner helps it maintain the moral high ground - even if the changes relate to "unlawful combatents", whatever that means
the way i see it you either apply the constitutional protections of human rights or you don't -
or is it a viable proposition to have different laws for people of a different colour, race, religion or nationality :dunno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5134328.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6518979.stm
kind of sad really - don't how changing america's laws now, regardless of what happened during the civil war etc., in this manner helps it maintain the moral high ground - even if the changes relate to "unlawful combatents", whatever that means
the way i see it you either apply the constitutional protections of human rights or you don't -
or is it a viable proposition to have different laws for people of a different colour, race, religion or nationality :dunno:
Last edited:
MRPIMPN4EVA
Banned
Very important information right here. Thanks for the links.
People have opinions, without knowing any history ...
The US Constitution is not some document that people all interpret the same. And it has been shown over and over again that Legislators as well as the Executive -- even the Judicial itself -- has disagreed time and time and time again over the meanings and intent of the US Constitution. If you take the American society at any fixed point in time, it is very, very, very flawed, with processes that are very, very, very slow.
The brilliance of the US form of government is that we manage to reverse the wrong decisions and wrong institutions that come about, over time. It's not immediate, it's called due process. Injustice is certain to happen. Wrongs are certain to occur. Innocent people are certain to be harmed. But in the end, the balances do just "work out."
There is already many Federal Court rulings working against both Legislative laws and Executive decisions of this Congress, this administration, the Congresses and administrations before it, etc... It won't happen overnight, but the wrongs are turned back. Yes, people are hurt in the process. People always get hurt in the process. But the balances are still there, and they come through.
Because there is never any guarantee in any form of government that the people, the majority, their elected officials or anyone else for that matter will always make the right decision, especially not the right decision for the future of their country. But there always is a process in the US Constitution to ensure that bad and wrong decisions are reversed, even if it takes time and the rights of the people are violated.
It's so easy -- in the "here and now" -- for people to take a "popularist" viewpoint and stance, and say "we must act." As much as the Congress, Clinton, W. and others say that, there are also far too many people saying other things in the "here and now" that would also cause as much harm. Balance and due process. It's not just about the individual, but the government that guarantees the individual, and that no one individual or collection of a majority -- even if elected -- can change the balance permanently, because there will always be times when they are able to enact such will temporarily.
The sky isn't falling. The sky is broken. It's always broken. But we piece it together as best as we can, and reverse the damage in a process. Not everyone agrees what is best at any time. But over time, we do have a process that ensures all will be heard, all will be considered, and the Constitution of the United States preserves the Freedoms of its citizens over that time. Even if its own, inefficient, unfair, and often absurd slow "due process" results in many individuals not being protected temporarily.
I refuse to be with the sheep.
Again, the Constitution is interpreted differently by many people in power, and has been over the years. The right to bear arms or the right to free speech has been limited in whatever ways people think they should be "for the common good."
Because people who "just hate the President, or the Democrats or the Republicans, etc..." have turned the smallest issues into massive, rhetoric-filled ones, it is the big issues that get lost! I don't care about "loud music." I care about people being tortured to death. If people would stop the rhetoric and political non-sense and wait until the issue is serious, then maybe, just maybe, we'd be more effective.
But as long as people want to bitch and scream about Jeb in the 2000 election, the Saudi Royal family being allowed to leave the US, the use of "loud music" or "sleep denial" in interrogation, etc..., then the real issues get lost, because we can't seem to "talk over" the screaming people filled with political rhetoric. With freedom and citizenship comes the responsibility to make your voice count. It's one thing to bring to light under real, historical civics.
It's another just to bitch. In fact, that's part of the problem. We are so into bitching in this country about so many things that are not important, that we often miss the things that are significant.
Unfortunately, this takes time, and is not overnight. Because if we did everything in the "here'n now" overnight, we'd quickly find ourselves in unresolved disagreements and our society would break down rather quickly.
I will highly recommend people act is if they are making their arguments in front of the US Supreme Court. If you come in with rhetoric and examples that have nothing to do with the issue, then your viewpoint will not be considered by those who are genuinely worried and concerned, and not merely some, selected Representative, Senator, President or other elected official they "dislike."
It's always about the Republic, not some Cult of Personality. You hate W., Clinton, whomever, fine. That has 0 to do with the issue.
Because, as I've pointed out regularly on this board, people have opinions, without knowing any history. And when you or I or anyone else brings up these matters, they respond with, "I don't believe you" or "that's your opinion" (no, it's historical fact) or "prove it" or -- my favorite yet -- "but this is different!"
The US Constitution is not some document that people all interpret the same. And it has been shown over and over again that Legislators as well as the Executive -- even the Judicial itself -- has disagreed time and time and time again over the meanings and intent of the US Constitution. If you take the American society at any fixed point in time, it is very, very, very flawed, with processes that are very, very, very slow.
The brilliance of the US form of government is that we manage to reverse the wrong decisions and wrong institutions that come about, over time. It's not immediate, it's called due process. Injustice is certain to happen. Wrongs are certain to occur. Innocent people are certain to be harmed. But in the end, the balances do just "work out."
There is already many Federal Court rulings working against both Legislative laws and Executive decisions of this Congress, this administration, the Congresses and administrations before it, etc... It won't happen overnight, but the wrongs are turned back. Yes, people are hurt in the process. People always get hurt in the process. But the balances are still there, and they come through.
Because there is never any guarantee in any form of government that the people, the majority, their elected officials or anyone else for that matter will always make the right decision, especially not the right decision for the future of their country. But there always is a process in the US Constitution to ensure that bad and wrong decisions are reversed, even if it takes time and the rights of the people are violated.
It's so easy -- in the "here and now" -- for people to take a "popularist" viewpoint and stance, and say "we must act." As much as the Congress, Clinton, W. and others say that, there are also far too many people saying other things in the "here and now" that would also cause as much harm. Balance and due process. It's not just about the individual, but the government that guarantees the individual, and that no one individual or collection of a majority -- even if elected -- can change the balance permanently, because there will always be times when they are able to enact such will temporarily.
The sky isn't falling. The sky is broken. It's always broken. But we piece it together as best as we can, and reverse the damage in a process. Not everyone agrees what is best at any time. But over time, we do have a process that ensures all will be heard, all will be considered, and the Constitution of the United States preserves the Freedoms of its citizens over that time. Even if its own, inefficient, unfair, and often absurd slow "due process" results in many individuals not being protected temporarily.
I don't think any of us agree with what is going on. The problem is that while some of us -- who think logically and intellectually, and present sound arguments against what both the Congress and President are doing at times -- are trying to correct wrongs in this country, we have to deal with the "screamers" who think we need socialism and other, radical changes like "popularism" to take over. So while those of us in the former understand our civics, its history and can effectively argue against those who are harming our nation, we have a lot of distractors and detractors who don't, who we are labeled with.
I refuse to be with the sheep.
Legislative, Executive, Judicial. On any given day on any given issue, they will differ in their viewpoints and their use of their powers. Rights are violated, laws abused, rulings in poor judgement. This is not only the nature of man, but the history of the United States of America. And yet, we have reversed wrongs, repealed laws and found action Unconstitutional. Not overnight, but over years. And the Republic has survived.
And with gun registration and confiscation, people like yourself in power have temporarily suspended the 2nd Amendment with your actions as well. I hope you recognized that reality as well!
Again, the Constitution is interpreted differently by many people in power, and has been over the years. The right to bear arms or the right to free speech has been limited in whatever ways people think they should be "for the common good."
And in the same regard, I would question "loud music" under the definition of "torture."
Because people who "just hate the President, or the Democrats or the Republicans, etc..." have turned the smallest issues into massive, rhetoric-filled ones, it is the big issues that get lost! I don't care about "loud music." I care about people being tortured to death. If people would stop the rhetoric and political non-sense and wait until the issue is serious, then maybe, just maybe, we'd be more effective.
But as long as people want to bitch and scream about Jeb in the 2000 election, the Saudi Royal family being allowed to leave the US, the use of "loud music" or "sleep denial" in interrogation, etc..., then the real issues get lost, because we can't seem to "talk over" the screaming people filled with political rhetoric. With freedom and citizenship comes the responsibility to make your voice count. It's one thing to bring to light under real, historical civics.
It's another just to bitch. In fact, that's part of the problem. We are so into bitching in this country about so many things that are not important, that we often miss the things that are significant.
It's called interpretation. The Executive is free to execute the law as they see fit. And the Judicial is free to rule it Unconstitutional. If the Executive does not respect that once they do, the Legislative is free to impeach the Executive. And that's just "scratching the surface" of the checks'n balances.
Unfortunately, this takes time, and is not overnight. Because if we did everything in the "here'n now" overnight, we'd quickly find ourselves in unresolved disagreements and our society would break down rather quickly.
Which means everyone agrees on what those are, where their limits are, and how the "public good" is served. It's not so simple.
Argumentative. Focus on the issues and rights at hand, not things that do not relate, and will not be taken seriously.
I will highly recommend people act is if they are making their arguments in front of the US Supreme Court. If you come in with rhetoric and examples that have nothing to do with the issue, then your viewpoint will not be considered by those who are genuinely worried and concerned, and not merely some, selected Representative, Senator, President or other elected official they "dislike."
It's always about the Republic, not some Cult of Personality. You hate W., Clinton, whomever, fine. That has 0 to do with the issue.
Re: People have opinions, without knowing any history ...
dude, if there are posts by my good self that aren't in absolute agreement with yours try not to interpret that as some sort of personal attack on my part - because they aren't
i posted on this thread, prior to you, in response to a request for un-biased information - which i got from wikipedia, the white house site and the bbc - and was subsequently thanked for providing the info
this happens to be a subject that i have some knowledge of - but i'm not going to set myself up as a self-appointed expert on the matter - i just enjoy the share of ideas and opinions, even when they don't agree with me
( habeas corpus is being denied, in the context of this thread, to "unlawful combatants" ( eg those at Guantanamo Bay ) tending to be of a different colour, race, religion or nationality - not argumentative so much as accurate )
dude, if there are posts by my good self that aren't in absolute agreement with yours try not to interpret that as some sort of personal attack on my part - because they aren't
i posted on this thread, prior to you, in response to a request for un-biased information - which i got from wikipedia, the white house site and the bbc - and was subsequently thanked for providing the info
this happens to be a subject that i have some knowledge of - but i'm not going to set myself up as a self-appointed expert on the matter - i just enjoy the share of ideas and opinions, even when they don't agree with me
( habeas corpus is being denied, in the context of this thread, to "unlawful combatants" ( eg those at Guantanamo Bay ) tending to be of a different colour, race, religion or nationality - not argumentative so much as accurate )
Re: People have opinions, without knowing any history ...
Furthermore, I stated that only 1 of the 3 quotes from your post were "argumentative."
Specifically, you stated that these people was the same as ...
"different laws for people of a different colour, race, religion or nationality"
This issue at hand, which has happened, many times in US history (this is hardly the first time), is whether "enemy combatants" have the same rights as civilians.
The US continues to protect the rights of illegal immigrants and many other "unfavorable non-citizens," and the issue at hand is a repeat of US history.
As I mentioned, the US continues to uphold laws for even non-US citizens, even those "unfavorable criminals."
A huge issue right now will "illegal immigration" in the US is that a good 25% are violent offenders.
Yet even in those cases, their rights are still protected in a court-of-law and upheld by everyone, even the President.
This has made W. quite unpopular with protectionalists on his immigrations views, and married a woman of Hispanic descent himself (and speaks conversational Spannish himself).
I don't say your comments are "argumentative" because I consider it a "personal attack" or something so stop making that assertion towards me.
As always, I only say its "argumentative" to point out the fact that you will lose the interest of those interested in intellectual debate on the matter.
When you introduce something under a context where it is not applicable, it tends to be argumentative, and people (at least those who have some knowledge on the subject) start disregarding your viewpoint.
That's all I meant by it.
In fact, I'm tired of people taking what I say as a "personal attack" -- or saying I took it as a "personal attack," when it's nothing of the sort!
I merely pointed out the context, how what you said is not applicable in that context, and why you should read up on the historical reality.
As much as some select people have tried to make it about "race" and such, it's the same as it was during many wars.
The "race card" can come back to bite the position if and when it fails to be applicable.
Although there have been far worse examples in US history that were about race.
Such as the internment camps during World War II, which specifically targetted race.
We're no where near that yet! And you must be careful when taking such a position.
Because while I don't like the situation any more than you do, when you drop into things like "race," you could end up losing your position.
A more sound argument is to avoid the "race card" and focus on the fact that American and Australian citizens are also held, using the Civil War Common Law as proof that this against the Constitution.
Once you step back and realize that I don't necessarily agree with your stance, ONLY your position/argument, you'll find I'm quite "the ally."
I never said they were a "personal attack."
Furthermore, I stated that only 1 of the 3 quotes from your post were "argumentative."
Specifically, you stated that these people was the same as ...
"different laws for people of a different colour, race, religion or nationality"
This issue at hand, which has happened, many times in US history (this is hardly the first time), is whether "enemy combatants" have the same rights as civilians.
The US continues to protect the rights of illegal immigrants and many other "unfavorable non-citizens," and the issue at hand is a repeat of US history.
I'm glad you're taking the time to learn. In fact, I only took issue with the fact that you took it out-of-context.
As I mentioned, the US continues to uphold laws for even non-US citizens, even those "unfavorable criminals."
A huge issue right now will "illegal immigration" in the US is that a good 25% are violent offenders.
Yet even in those cases, their rights are still protected in a court-of-law and upheld by everyone, even the President.
This has made W. quite unpopular with protectionalists on his immigrations views, and married a woman of Hispanic descent himself (and speaks conversational Spannish himself).
I don't say your comments are "argumentative" because I consider it a "personal attack" or something so stop making that assertion towards me.
As always, I only say its "argumentative" to point out the fact that you will lose the interest of those interested in intellectual debate on the matter.
When you introduce something under a context where it is not applicable, it tends to be argumentative, and people (at least those who have some knowledge on the subject) start disregarding your viewpoint.
That's all I meant by it.
It's not even about "agreeing/disagreeing."this happens to be a subject that i have some knowledge of - but i'm not going to set myself up as a self-appointed expert on the matter - i just enjoy the share of ideas and opinions, even when they don't agree with me
In fact, I'm tired of people taking what I say as a "personal attack" -- or saying I took it as a "personal attack," when it's nothing of the sort!
I merely pointed out the context, how what you said is not applicable in that context, and why you should read up on the historical reality.
And they have been Americans as well as Australians citizens as well.
As much as some select people have tried to make it about "race" and such, it's the same as it was during many wars.
The "race card" can come back to bite the position if and when it fails to be applicable.
Although there have been far worse examples in US history that were about race.
Such as the internment camps during World War II, which specifically targetted race.
We're no where near that yet! And you must be careful when taking such a position.
Because while I don't like the situation any more than you do, when you drop into things like "race," you could end up losing your position.
A more sound argument is to avoid the "race card" and focus on the fact that American and Australian citizens are also held, using the Civil War Common Law as proof that this against the Constitution.
Once you step back and realize that I don't necessarily agree with your stance, ONLY your position/argument, you'll find I'm quite "the ally."
The writ of habeas corpus, under the constitution, may only be suspended because of an invasion or a rebellion. Folks, neither of these actions have occured. And let me make this clear, habeas corpus was not just suspended but it's been eliminated under the Patriot Act and the Military Commisions Act.
During the days of Lincoln he suspended the writ because he looked upon the Southerners as being rebelious. So he had every right to suspened habeas corpus but it was reinstated. That is something that this administration has no thought in doing.
It is funny to me that GW Bush, when sworn into office, says that he will defend and uphold the constitution. This president has done more to eliminate personal liberties set forth by our fore fathers and the constitution than any other president to date. And by the simple act of going against the constitution is enough for impeachment.
I voted for Bush and now I am deeply troubled by what this administration is doing. If anyone wants to know a true patriot and a man who is made of founding father material then I beg you to look into Dr.Ron Paul. This man has been in congress for 30 years and has lead his whole career by the constitution.
www.ronpaul2008.com
During the days of Lincoln he suspended the writ because he looked upon the Southerners as being rebelious. So he had every right to suspened habeas corpus but it was reinstated. That is something that this administration has no thought in doing.
It is funny to me that GW Bush, when sworn into office, says that he will defend and uphold the constitution. This president has done more to eliminate personal liberties set forth by our fore fathers and the constitution than any other president to date. And by the simple act of going against the constitution is enough for impeachment.
I voted for Bush and now I am deeply troubled by what this administration is doing. If anyone wants to know a true patriot and a man who is made of founding father material then I beg you to look into Dr.Ron Paul. This man has been in congress for 30 years and has lead his whole career by the constitution.
www.ronpaul2008.com
Similar threads
