Sarge Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I don't think there is a long list of liberals who wants all the detainees at Gitmo released and sent to' date=' like, Chicago tomorrow.The problem is - as Larry said - they are in a legal no man's land according to the Bush Administration. "Enemy combatents" under the administrations definition are neither fish nor fowl. They aren't POWs which means that they have no rights under any foreign treaties. They aren't criminals which would give them rights under the Constitution. They are some new creation that has no rights at all. I am saying this as someone who is anti-death penalty: Just give them a fair hearing and if they are "terrorists," execute them. I could live with that. It's better than whatever the hell we are doing now.[/quote'] THey are not a "New Creation". The term "Enemy Combatant" is defined in the Geneva Convention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Because he's the Commander in Chief:doh:So if Obama locks up gun owners it'd be okay with you? After all, he'd be the Commander in Chief. If not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Gitmo is exactly what is going to happen against American's when we get deeper and deeper into this executive stranglehold over the country. Appointing an Attorney General that says that the Constitution is "Quaint." Yeah, that's why we need guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 :doh:So if Obama locks up gun owners it'd be okay with you? After all, he'd be the Commander in Chief. If not, why not? Don't usually do hypotheticals, but if so he'd have to be acting in that capacity. That means he'd be doing so against US citizens and against the US Constitution, unless this court got rid of the 2nd Amendment, which wouldn't surprise me. Then he'd encounter the true meaning of the 2nd AMendment and the Declaration of Independnce, which basically allows people to have guns to get rid of an oppressive government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Ford was a liberal himself So that's why I voted for him. (Twice, as a matter of fact.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Because he's the Commander in Chief But Sarge, he's Commander in Chief in the US. The Constitution doesn't apply outside the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Because they are enemy combatants. (period) Funny, I don't see those words in the Constitution. (And even if they are, what difference does it make? The Constitution only applies inside the US, and only against US citizens, right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 But Sarge, he's Commander in Chief in the US. The Constitution doesn't apply outside the US. It applies to Americans forces outside the US to a degree. Servicemen always lose some of their rights when they serve. And we serve at the direction of the Commander in Chief no matter where we are on the planet. But you already knew that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 THey are not a "New Creation". The term "Enemy Combatant" is defined in the Geneva Convention Are they? I know you've referenced the term "unauthorized combatants", but I don't recall you mentioning this other term, before. Besides, Geneva doesn't apply to Gitmo. Bush has said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 It applies to Americans forces outside the US to a degree. Servicemen always lose some of their rights when they serve.And we serve at the direction of the Commander in Chief no matter where we are on the planet. But you already knew that So, who or what grants the US Government the authority to act outside the US? Who gave the government that power? (And how did they grant it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Are they? I know you've referenced the term "unauthorized combatants", but I don't recall you mentioning this other term, before. Besides, Geneva doesn't apply to Gitmo. Bush has said so. Sorry, meant "Illegal Combatant", which is in the Geneva Convention. "Enemy Combatant" was the term coined by FDR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Still, you haven't answerred. If the Constitution doesn't apply in Gitmo, then where does Bush get his authority in Gitmo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Funny, I don't see those words in the Constitution. (And even if they are, what difference does it make? The Constitution only applies inside the US, and only against US citizens, right?) Sure, since it is US property, it should apply to US citizens, not terrorists. Maybe they should have put thier guns down and not fought against us. If we would have shot them, we wouldn't have to worry about all of the whining for terrorist rights. The only answer is to start killing any combatant. At this point it doesn't matter, terrorist sympathizers are now involved and IMO The Supreme Court has failed us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Sure, since it is US property, it should apply to US citizens, not terrorists. Maybe they should have put thier guns down and not fought against us. If we would have shot them, we wouldn't have to worry about all of the whining for terrorist rights.The only answer is to start killing any combatant. At this point it doesn't matter, terrorist sympathizers are now involved and IMO The Supreme Court has failed us. And if they're innocent, and we kill them or imprison them? Oh right, not American...not human, I forgot :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 And if they're innocent, and we kill them or imprison them?Oh right, not American...not human, I forgot :doh: Do you think we placed them in custody because they were standing in the street or walking thier sheep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Do you think we placed them in custody because they were standing in the street or walking thier sheep? Do you think that there is no possibility that we could have grabbed an innocent man? Oh and :laugh: at walking their sheep! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Do you think that there is no possibility that we could have grabbed an innocent man?Oh and :laugh: at walking their sheep! I guess if they were carrying a gun, we should have just shot them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Sure, since it is US property, it should apply to US citizens, not terrorists. And yet you continue to assert an argument that's so stupid you won't even state it. You keep claiming the existence of some mythical, invisible clause in the Constitution that says "the Constitution doesn't apply to [pick the excuse of the minute]" But even then you'll dodge and weave. Because what you really mean is "Any time I can dream up an excuse, with nothing to support it whatsoever, then what happens is that all the parts that say 'the government cannot . . ' magically cease to exist, but all the parts which say 'the government has the power to . . . ' become infinitely powerful" You're desperate to create a place or a situation in which all of the Constitution's limitations vanish. A place where the government can do whatever it wants. You don't want a place where "the Constituti0on doesn't apply". You want a place where "these parts of the Constitution don't count, but these other parts do". George Bush (and, apparently, the Congress) wants to claim that "the Constitution doesn't apply in Gitmo". Trouble is, the Constitution is the document which gives Bush his authority. If it doesn't apply, then he can't give orders there. If it doesn't apply, we can't spend money there. What he wants is to pick and chose which parts apply. He wants the powers of his office, but without the oath of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I guess if they were carrying a gun, we should have just shot them. Theres probably a higher percentage of people in Iraq who own guns then there is in the US. Iraq is a very unsafe place. If I were walking my sheep in Baghdad, I'd be carrying an AK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Theres probably a higher percentage of people in Iraq who own guns then there is in the US.Iraq is a very unsafe place. If I were walking my sheep in Baghdad, I'd be carrying an AK. It's probably even higher, now that we're bribing people to act nice by handing out guns to every faction in the place. (Still, they had plenty before we started handing them out. It's not like they can use 4 at the same time.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 It's probably even higher, now that we're bribing people to act nice by handing out guns to every faction in the place. (Still, they had plenty before we started handing them out. It's not like they can use 4 at the same time.) Oh but they'll try... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Ford was a liberal himself :doh: Yeah because of all those social programs Gerold Ford instituted on his watch.... Ford described his philosophy as "a moderate in domestic affairs, an internationalist in foreign affairs, and a conservative in fiscal policy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford I guess you think Reagan was a liberal too because he appointed Kennedy... Or Bush Sr, because he appointed Sutter... ( Bush Sr. actually was a moderate pro choice republican before being tapped for Reagan's VP. Reagan made it terms of his selection that he change his position on abortion. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Still, you haven't answerred. If the Constitution doesn't apply in Gitmo, then where does Bush get his authority in Gitmo? The supreme court found that since the United States has occupied Gitmo since the conclusion of the spanish american war in 1890's and since the early 1960's over the objections of the Cuban government; It was United States Territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Do you think we placed them in custody because they were standing in the street or walking thier sheep? Actually among the folks we have released after holding them for months or even years, that's exactly what they were guilty of. Walking up the wrong street during a sweep. Walking up the street during a bombing. Walking up the street after curfew. Walking up the street when US soldiers were conducting operations. Thats why we've released on order of 95% of the folks we've detained at Abu Grab and Gitmo. For gods sakes we were holding 11, 12 year old boys there for a few years. Snatched off the streets of Afghanistan, and held without informing their families.. We released the kids quitely before the last Presidential election, after CNN reported on their case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Didnt we just release one of the detainees that went to Mosul and blew himself up and killed others. Great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.