PDA

View Full Version : The WAR UNDER SIEGE! 6-12-08



RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/12/2008, 01:11 PM
To punctuate the left's position that America is not at war, we have the new SCOTUS ruling:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061201695.html?hpid=topnews

Sooner_Havok
6/12/2008, 01:28 PM
Damn that constitution! Isn't there anything we can do to stop it?


P.S.

Poop :D

JohnnyMack
6/12/2008, 02:06 PM
Bush's two appointees weren't enough to overcome common sense.

Fugue
6/12/2008, 02:26 PM
Bush's two appointees weren't enough to overcome common sense.


You need to read the ruling plus the dissent and see where the common sense is. All this ruling did was add layers of litigation to the detainee's cause and put foreign policy in the hands of unelected lawyers and judges.
Extremely shortsighted ruling.

Harry Beanbag
6/12/2008, 04:17 PM
Let me first say that I don't agree with just keeping them locked up forever. But they also should have zero constitutional rights, that doesn't even make any sense.

I think we should just shoot every one of them on sight.

Sooner Eclipse
6/12/2008, 04:26 PM
We should do what we've always done.

Try them in a military tribunal. If convicted, execute. If not, send their asses home when our troops are no longer in country.

Sooner_Havok
6/12/2008, 04:58 PM
But they also should have zero constitutional rights, that doesn't even make any sense.
.

Let me say first that I don't like what I am about to say, but...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How can we claim this, then say "only US citizens have these rights?"

I don't like them using our court systems, but I am afraid they have a right to.

Harry Beanbag
6/12/2008, 05:07 PM
How can we claim this, then say "only US citizens have these rights?"

I don't like them using our court systems, but I am afraid they have a right to.


Well I guess since we also have seen fit to extend those rights to women then maybe you have a point. :)

NormanPride
6/12/2008, 05:09 PM
heh.

Sooner_Havok
6/12/2008, 05:11 PM
heh.

You do know that PG, and Badger are going to kill him, right:D

SicEmBaylor
6/12/2008, 05:12 PM
Let me first say that I don't agree with just keeping them locked up forever. But they also should have zero constitutional rights, that doesn't even make any sense.

I think we should just shoot every one of them on sight.

I completely agree.

The idea that you're going to throw these illegitimate enemy combatants into the domestic/civilian court system seems pretty absurd to me. It would seem to me that this forces our military to become police investigators that have to be worried about collecting evidence, chain of custody, etc. issues when fighting terrorists. Are we going to have to get a warrant now before kicking down a door in Baghdad? Do we have to give a terrorist a miranda warning???

SicEmBaylor
6/12/2008, 05:13 PM
Let me say first that I don't like what I am about to say, but...

How can we claim this, then say "only US citizens have these rights?"

I don't like them using our court systems, but I am afraid they have a right to.

Because inalienable rights have nothing to do with constitutional rights and protections of U.S. citizens. Access to American courts and constitutional rights ARE NOT inalienable rights and have nothing to do with all men being equal.

They should have absolutely NO right to our courts UNLESS they are captured within these United States, its territory, or any other area that it has legal authority over.

Harry Beanbag
6/12/2008, 05:16 PM
You do know that PG, and Badger are going to kill him, right:D


It was just a joke, I love the womenfolk. :)

Please don't hurt me.

Sooner_Havok
6/12/2008, 05:19 PM
Because inalienable rights have nothing to do with constitutional rights and protections of U.S. citizens. Access to American courts and constitutional rights ARE NOT inalienable rights and have nothing to do with all men being equal.

They should have absolutely NO right to our courts UNLESS they are captured within these United States, its territory, or any other area that it has legal authority over.

But, we don't have the right to keep them imprisoned for the better part of a decade without charges. We are depriving them of their inalienable rights. If the military would have given them a trail, we wouldn't be at this point. Like I said, I don't like it, but we cannot claim to be a nation founded of the belief that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights, then turn around and say "Except you you guys, you have no rights at all"

SicEmBaylor
6/12/2008, 05:24 PM
But, we don't have the right to keep them imprisoned for the better part of a decade without charges. We are depriving them of their inalienable rights. If the military would have given them a trail, we wouldn't be at this point. Like I said, I don't like it, but we cannot claim to be a nation founded of the belief that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights, then turn around and say "Except you you guys, you have no rights at all"

They forefit those rights when they willingly wake war upon these United States. These people don't even have the legitimacy of normal soliders in war time since they are not sanctioned by a legitimate and internationally recognized nation-state. They have no legitimacy whatsoever that may protect them while in our custody.

I'm not saying they don't have some VERY limited rights. I think a military review of their case is more than sufficient. There's absolutely nothing in the respect for human rights that would require us to give these people constitutional rights. Constitutional rights do not equal human rights and that kind of absurd thinking is what help us get into this damned war in the first place. American values, rights, and liberty ARE NOT for the rest of the world.

Sooner_Havok
6/12/2008, 05:29 PM
American values, rights, and liberty ARE NOT for the rest of the world.

No they are not, but when we are the ones that strip people of their rights, we are obliged to remedy that. Even Göring got a trial.

Harry Beanbag
6/12/2008, 05:33 PM
Even Göring got a trial.


At least he had the decency to commit suicide without killing dozens of innocent people at the same time.

Sooner_Havok
6/12/2008, 06:11 PM
At least he had the decency to commit suicide without killing dozens of innocent people at the same time.

Guess he figured he already got 6 million, what more could he do

LosAngelesSooner
6/12/2008, 08:53 PM
They forefit those rights when they willingly wake war upon these United States.Ahem.

No.



in·al·ien·a·ble http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png // http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/

/ɪnˈeɪlhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngyəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngbəl, -ˈeɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnglihttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngə-/ Pronunciation Key (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/)eyl[/B]-y[I]uh-nuh-buhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, -ey-lee-uh-] Pronunciation Key (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/)

–adjective not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

[Origin: 1635–45; in- (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=in-)3 + alienable (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alienable)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

—Related formsin·al·ien·a·bil·i·ty, in·al·ien·a·ble·ness, noun

in·al·ien·a·bly, adverb

—Synonyms inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent.You can't have "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness when I feel like letting you." :rolleyes:

Unless you think dictatorships are a good way to go.

SicEmBaylor
6/12/2008, 08:57 PM
Ahem.

No.

You can't have "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness when I feel like letting you." :rolleyes:

Unless you think dictatorships are a good way to go.

Ahem, respect for those rights requires the active participation of both parties.

You can make the exact same argument against ever arresting or incarcerating ANYONE because by definition we're violating their inalienable rights by doing so.

I also do happen to think dictators are a good way to go...just not here...and only when they are friendly to our interests.

Harry Beanbag
6/12/2008, 09:05 PM
Ahem.

No.

You can't have "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness when I feel like letting you." :rolleyes:

Unless you think dictatorships are a good way to go.


If these guys are to be considered the same as U.S. citizens, then treason during a time of war is punishable by death. I'm onboard with that.

JohnnyMack
6/12/2008, 09:58 PM
If these guys are to be considered the same as U.S. citizens, then treason during a time of war is punishable by death. I'm onboard with that.

Fine. Shoot them in the ****ing head. Whatever. Just do something.

def_lazer_fc
6/13/2008, 01:06 AM
They forefit those rights when they willingly wake war upon these United States.

but you're making a HUGE assumption that all the people we keep locked away in these military prisons are guilty.

LosAngelesSooner
6/13/2008, 04:06 AM
Ahem, respect for those rights requires the active participation of both parties.

You can make the exact same argument against ever arresting or incarcerating ANYONE because by definition we're violating their inalienable rights by doing so.

I also do happen to think dictators are a good way to go...just not here...and only when they are friendly to our interests.Can't have it both ways. You either believe in the Constitution and the Declaration which are the basis for this country and its ideals or you don't.

Inalienable is a word. It has a definition. You either accept what our founding fathers intended and defined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or you don't accept it.

And if you don't accept it, you're not American and America isn't for you. Maybe you should move and create your own Theocratic Oligarchy.

LosAngelesSooner
6/13/2008, 04:07 AM
If these guys are to be considered the same as U.S. citizens, then treason during a time of war is punishable by death. I'm onboard with that."ALL MEN" not "All Citizens."

Quite a difference those pesky words make.

TUSooner
6/13/2008, 05:47 AM
Technical point: The Constitution does not say anything about "inalienable rights"; that's in the Declaration of Independence which, alas, has essentially no legal weight.

Okla-homey
6/13/2008, 06:20 AM
I predict this will lead to field interrogations, followed by shooting the guy when he is caught trying to escape.:O

and look on the bright side. the bleeding heart set will spend a lot of resources trying to get all the inmates of the GITMO jihaadist storage center a hearing.

That's time and money they won't have to spend on other silly stuff. You know, like requiring churches to perform gay marriages as a condition of their tax exempt status or granting beef cattle human rights or something.

LosAngelesSooner
6/13/2008, 01:27 PM
You guys realize that the WW2 POWs were, by the vast majority, simply released back into the general population of Germany once the war was over?

Only the higher ups, officers, politicos and Nazi Party/Gestapo bosses were tried for war crimes?

Yeah. I thought most of you forgot. It's just easier to say, "Shoot the brown guy!"

;)

SicEmBaylor
6/13/2008, 02:20 PM
Can't have it both ways. You either believe in the Constitution or you don't.

Inalienable is a word. It has a definition. You either accept what our founding fathers intended and defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or you don't accept it.

And if you don't accept it, you're not American and America isn't for you. Maybe you should move and create your own Theocratic Oligarchy.

Our inalienable rights are not defined by the constitution. They were defined in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is a uniquely American way of organizing government and protecting the greatest degree of freedom possible that go well above and beyond basic rights.

What I am saying here is that the right to elected government is not an inalienable right. The right to own a firearm is not an inalienable right. The right to due process is NOT an inalienable right. You're confusing two distinctly different American principles and their outlining documents.

If you believe that what is written in the Constitution is universal and inalienable then that lends credence to the idea that its our duty to spread American government and freedom throughout the world in the same nation-building scheme we have going in Iraq right now. I think it's you who can't have it both ways.

In short, Constitutional rights are for Americans or anyone arrested within the United States or wherever the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution is not the supreme law of the land on a battlefield or a foreign nation.

SicEmBaylor
6/13/2008, 02:20 PM
Technical point: The Constitution does not say anything about "inalienable rights"; that's in the Declaration of Independence which, alas, has essentially no legal weight.

:sigh: That's what I've been trying to get across.

soonerscuba
6/13/2008, 02:25 PM
Either way, they had better hurry, that joint has about a 8 month shelf life.

LosAngelesSooner
6/13/2008, 02:29 PM
Our inalienable rights are not defined by the constitution. They were defined in the Declaration of Independence.
Yes. Very good. I already said that.

And both are founding principles of this nation and our belief in how our way of life should be.


What I am saying here is that the right to elected government is not an inalienable right. The right to own a firearm is not an inalienable right. The right to due process is NOT an inalienable right.
No. I never said they were inalienable rights.

And they have no bearing on the argument at hand.

You should look back at what you were stating and then maybe it'll make sense to you.


If you believe that what is written in the Constitution is universal and inalienable then that lends credence to the idea that its our duty to spread American government and freedom throughout the world in the same nation-building scheme we have going in Iraq right now. I think it's you who can't have it both ways.
But I don't and I don't. So that's a non-issue.

However the inalienable rights you're trying to take away from human beings remain and, thus, still dismantle your argument quite effectively.


In short, Constitutional rights are for Americans or anyone arrested within the United States or wherever the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution is not the supreme law of the land on a battlefield or a foreign nation.Very good.

Now...can we get back to those inalienable rights you keep trying to take away from people while still claiming to be an American and hold to "American ideals?"

K. Thanks.

LosAngelesSooner
6/13/2008, 02:30 PM
:sigh: That's what I've been trying to get across unnecessarily in an attempt to cover up the fact that my argument is unabashedly un-American and quite hypocritical to the ideals I "supposedly" espouse in my myriad of other posts here on SF.com.Fixed.

Harry Beanbag
6/13/2008, 05:08 PM
You guys realize that the WW2 POWs were, by the vast majority, simply released back into the general population of Germany once the war was over?



Look at that, more pesky words.


;) :) :D :rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner
6/13/2008, 08:47 PM
Look at that, more pesky words.


;) :) :D :rolleyes:
And I feel we should end the war, too.

Frozen Sooner
6/13/2008, 09:20 PM
Technical point: The Constitution does not say anything about "inalienable rights"; that's in the Declaration of Independence which, alas, has essentially no legal weight.

However, the Supreme Court has cited the Declaration of Independence several times in opinions, which would tend to suggest that Constitutional matters can be interpreted as best consonant with the Declaration of Independence. See Butcher's Union v. Crescent City Shipping (Field writing in concurrence) and Loving v. Virginia (Warren writing in the majority).

47straight
6/15/2008, 04:26 PM
The Declaration of Independence is generally not useful for interpreting the Constitution. If it was it would forever shut up the ACLU about "under God."