Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on June 28, 2004, 01:49:51 PM
-
Supreme Court Deals Blow to War on Terror (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040628/ts_nm/security_court_dc)
Time for another Constitutional amendment? :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Supreme Court Deals Blow to War on Terror (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040628/ts_nm/security_court_dc)
Time for another Constitutional amendment? :D
What was the first one?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Supreme Court Deals Blow to War on Terror (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040628/ts_nm/security_court_dc)
Time for another Constitutional amendment? :D
I know you don't think so but that is a serious blow to our National Security and is again a call to all who truly love America to vote Republican. This is simply another example of legislation from the bench. It needs to be stopped.
-
It was Amendment I...really
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
What was the first one?
Freedom of Speech religion, press
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It was Amendment I...really
Heheh.....
-
Fine....turn them over to the country they were captured in then. I'm sure Afghanistan knows how to deal with them.
Btw, this should go too for any American caught fighting for the Taliban. A little muslim justice would serve quit nicely and I'm sure the liberals can't argue that fact too much.
-
Originally posted by storch
Freedom of Speech religion, press
That was a lame attempt at humor on my part...
If I did not know the constitution, I certainly would not ask here..
I would look it up first.
-
Sandman, were you one of those liberals claiming that this same Supreme Court illegally stole the election for Bush?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
What was the first one?
Hasn't got that far yet... but Dubya has been talking about a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages.
-
Not surprising that the SC would vote to retain powers for the judiciary.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Sandman, were you one of those liberals claiming that this same Supreme Court illegally stole the election for Bush?
That situation was far too messy to make such a claim either way.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
That was a lame attempt at humor on my part...
If I did not know the constitution, I certainly would not ask here..
I would look it up first.
Sorry, I was not mocking.
-
Originally posted by storch
I know you don't think so but that is a serious blow to our National Security and is again a call to all who truly love America to vote Republican. This is simply another example of legislation from the bench. It needs to be stopped.
I never know when these guys are being serious - tell me how do all you Americans feel about the above statement - not voting for Republican means you don't love your country?
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I never know when these guys are being serious - tell me how do all you Americans feel about the above statement - not voting for Republican means you don't love your country?
It's bovine excrement.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I never know when these guys are being serious - tell me how do all you Americans feel about the above statement - not voting for Republican means you don't love your country?
No, I really don't believe that's necessarily the case. On a seperate note, however, I really can't envision Kerry handling the past 3 years properly. Dean and Gore have proven themselves to be unhinged raving lunatics.
I probably would have voted for Edwards had the Dems chosen him, but for some strange reason they chose to back Kerry.
Sometimes, I feel that Bush has gone a lilttle overboard, but all in all, I think he has honestly led this country on the right path. It's hard to blame the administration for a lot of things they get blamed for.
When it's all said and done, this country has a wonderful check and balance system, and the Supreme Court ruling is an example of how things can change, even if I don't agree with it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Sandman, were you one of those liberals claiming that this same Supreme Court illegally stole the election for Bush?
Some great minds have made that argument.
-
those held in Cuba are now free to swim home ...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Some great minds have made that argument.
Well, I guess those "great minds" will be speaking out against this latest interference or travesty as well then?
-
This is a job for Roy Cohn! You go get the insence, I'll start chanting!
-Sik
-
I thought this was the partisan "law-be-damned" "bush supporting" supreme court? Was someone replaced?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I thought this was the partisan "law-be-damned" "bush supporting" supreme court? Was someone replaced?
The court is about evenly split.
-
yada yada!
Even a blind squirrel.....
you know the rest.
-
Originally posted by storch
The court is about evenly split.
Because "the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's liberty in the absence of sufficient process here is very real," a citizen seeking to challenge his classification must have notice "and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker."
8 to 1
-
Originally posted by storch
The court is about evenly split.
LOL! that's a classic.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Because "the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's liberty in the absence of sufficient process here is very real," a citizen seeking to challenge his classification must have notice "and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker."
8 to 1
Not on this particular issue but in general, some of you guys could peer through a keyhole with perfect binocular vision.
-
I dont see this as a defeat for Bush or a triumph for the constitution. I still dont understand how somone who is not a US Citizin is afforded protection under the very constitution they wish to destroy.
OTOH The seperate ruling (there was more than one here....have to say this was a very detail lacking post) saying that a US citizen picked up on the street cannot be held indefinate is a great ruling. I completly agreed with it.
I just fear that we are once again giving the terrorists advantages by providing them lawyers. Give them a judge w/ a security clearence and an interpretur and let them make their case why they are not a danger to the US.
Point and simple if a US citizen picks up arms against the US in a foreign country charge him w/ treason and be done w/ it.
I think Bush's main failure here was not declaring war from the begining. That would have made alot of things very different.
-
I think some of you sometimes forget is that while it might protect some terrorists rights. It also protects yours. That is the best weapon against terrorism there is and is why in the end, right will prevail. If a terrorist suspect can have his constitutional rights taken away then they can take away all your rights too. The price of freedom is sometimes hard to bear but it's worth it.
-
Originally posted by Goth
Fine....turn them over to the country they were captured in then. I'm sure Afghanistan knows how to deal with them.
Btw, this should go too for any American caught fighting for the Taliban. A little muslim justice would serve quit nicely and I'm sure the liberals can't argue that fact too much.
now that is the best idea I have heard all day!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I dont see this as a defeat for Bush or a triumph for the constitution. I still dont understand how somone who is not a US Citizin is afforded protection under the very constitution they wish to destroy.
Because it's the high road and it demonstrates strength of this country, its Constitution, and its people.
-
And again, the court oversteps its authority, and attempts to legislate AND set foreign policy from the bench, neither of which is within their job description.
As far as it goes, it is very clear. The Constitution DOES NOT apply to enemy combatants who, uniformed or not, are not citizens of the United States. But then, the courts do more to run this country, with the help of millions of greedy lawyers, than the legislative or executive branches do.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
As far as it goes, it is very clear. The Constitution DOES NOT apply to enemy combatants who, uniformed or not, are not citizens of the United States.
Care to quote any laws supporting this?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Point and simple if a US citizen picks up arms against the US in a foreign country charge him w/ treason and be done w/ it.
I think Bush's main failure here was not declaring war from the begining. That would have made alot of things very different.
The President cannot declare war the is the prerogative of the the Congress. He may ask that war be declared, no President has ever been turned down IIRC.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I think some of you sometimes forget is that while it might protect some terrorists rights. It also protects yours. That is the best weapon against terrorism there is and is why in the end, right will prevail. If a terrorist suspect can have his constitutional rights taken away then they can take away all your rights too. The price of freedom is sometimes hard to bear but it's worth it.
Not sure what context you are comming from with this. If the terrorist suspect is an American citizen, they should have constitutional rights. If its an American citizen captured on the battlefield, I have no problem with their constitutional rights being honored before they are executed for treason If its a forgein prisoner, human rights yes, Constitutional rights? BS.