Will the Supreme Court's Butchery of the Constitution Get Us Attacked?

obvious Child · 06-22-08, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You really need to get out more my left wing friend.

Where left is defined as anyone who disagrees with you. And considering that you think the super poor drive regularly, maybe it is you who needs to get out. I see you simply abandoned the thread where you claimed no one uses the Seattle mass transit system after someone posted the actual large ridership numbers.

Quote:

I have disagreements with Republics on several issues like Spending and Immigration but I don't agree with democrats on any issue.

What a lie. You may think you don't but given your arguments in support of more government it is likely you're ignorant about what the Democrats actually support.

Point still remains that you defend the GOP on everything and against all criticism. Remember you were the one who attacked people on whistlestopper for criticizing the fiscal recklessness of the Bush administration.

rsixing · 06-23-08, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

That is what you say now but if it was your wife or daughter that was killed because of the obstructionist tactics of the democrats you would be singing a different tune........

My family is as patriotic as I am and we all agree that to die free is more important then loosing our rights for some ethereal sense of "safety". However the brainwashing and propagandizing by the right is very effective. If it weren't people wouldn't be so conformist.

Navy Pride · 06-23-08, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Where left is defined as anyone who disagrees with you. And considering that you think the super poor drive regularly, maybe it is you who needs to get out. I see you simply abandoned the thread where you claimed no one uses the Seattle mass transit system after someone posted the actual large ridership numbers.

What a lie. You may think you don't but given your arguments in support of more government it is likely you're ignorant about what the Democrats actually support.

Point still remains that you defend the GOP on everything and against all criticism. Remember you were the one who attacked people on whistlestopper for criticizing the fiscal recklessness of the Bush administration.

Whatever..........

Navy Pride · 06-23-08, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsixing

My family is as patriotic as I am and we all agree that to die free is more important then loosing our rights for some ethereal sense of "safety". However the brainwashing and propagandizing by the right is very effective. If it weren't people wouldn't be so conformist.

I don't buy that rhetoric......Its easy to say when it doesn't happen but I can tell you I would do or say anything to save the lives of my family.........My family comes over everything...............

Its called God, Family and country in that order..........

rsixing · 06-23-08, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

I don't buy that rhetoric......Its easy to say when it doesn't happen but I can tell you I would do or say anything to save the lives of my family.........My family comes over everything...............

Its called God, Family and country in that order..........

That's yours to own not mine. If you wish your family to live in constant fear, cowtowing to right wing extemist rhetoric that you're spouting here, that's their choice...and yours. As for my own we live in freedom from fear of death and freedom from accepting extremist right-wing propagandizing designed to abrogate our liberties and rights. Unfortunately it appears you and yours have bought into it lock, stock and barrel. I feel for you.

Iriemon · 06-23-08, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

I don't buy that rhetoric......Its easy to say when it doesn't happen but I can tell you I would do or say anything to save the lives of my family.........My family comes over everything...............

Its called God, Family and country in that order..........

So I take it you are against trials for accused criminals on the grounds that your family members might get killed in a crime.

oldreliable67 · 06-23-08, 02:18 PM

Quote:

for some ethereal sense of "safety"

It certainly wasn't "ethereal" when I was descending 96 floors of 2 WTC in pitch dark in Feb '93. Nor was it "ethereal" when I was running from 2 WTC on 9/11 (fortunately for me, it was only 43 floors this time). Neither was losing several friends from their upper floors "ethereal."

Absolutely nothing "ethereal" about any of it.

Fred Thompson recently pointed out three problems with the ruling:

Quote:

First, the Court left total confusion and uncertainty as to what rights these habeas petitions will vindicate. What will be the nature of the review under these new habeas rights? Will the Court review the constitutionality of the detention hearing procedures? What will be the burden of proof in these new proceedings? Will they have a factual hearing in order to try to recreate the circumstances in the field at the time of the detainee’s apprehension?

The answer is no one knows. It will all be dumped into the laps of some federal district judge and his or her law clerks. These are unprecedented circumstances and there is no way to predict what some judge might see as his or her new mandate under the constitution.

Again, it will be a federal judge — not the President or the Congress or a military tribunal — who will decide the appropriate extent to which the detainee will have access to classified military information, as just one of the more troubling examples. In other words, the branch of our government least qualified to make determinations on national security and foreign policy will now do just that. One other thing is certain. Whatever comes out of this new habeas corpus mish mash will generate a new round of appeals and our avowed enemies will work their way deeper and deeper into our court system.

Second, the majority opinion throws into question whether the tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and the more than 1000 in Afghanistan are now entitled to habeas. Is the Court going to extend habeas protection to all foreign detainees held in foreign territory over which the United States is not sovereign, but has de facto control? We could be looking at tens of thousands of military detainee habeas cases in federal court.

Third, the Court’s decision encourages al Qaeda to continue in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are designed to protect civilians and to reward combatants with certain protections if they abide by the Conventions. Al Qaeda specifically targets civilians and wears no uniform to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Our policy now is to give al Qaeda combatants privileges that exceed the Conventions in terms of access to our court system without requiring al Qaeda to abide by these conventions themselves. This, of course, is an incentive for them to violate the law of war. They receive no penalty for not doing so, and by not wearing uniforms, makes any standard of proof requirement with regard to enemy combatant status more difficult for the United States. We are literally giving the enemy the means by which they can do us great harm.

Thompson also pointed out that before the decision, detainees at Gitmo were provided "more process than any that has ever been afforded prisoners of war in history. They go substantially past the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. These are the rights that the majority decided were insufficient..."

Navy Pride · 06-23-08, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsixing

That's yours to own not mine. If you wish your family to live in constant fear, cowtowing to right wing extemist rhetoric that you're spouting here, that's their choice...and yours. As for my own we live in freedom from fear of death and freedom from accepting extremist right-wing propagandizing designed to abrogate our liberties and rights. Unfortunately it appears you and yours have bought into it lock, stock and barrel. I feel for you.

That is horse **** and left wing spin and talking points...........Its outrageous to try and block terrorists phone calls into this country because they might be talking to and American Citizen............I nor my family nor any of my Conservative friends feel threatened or live in any fear............Again more partisan politics..........

If you have that little value for the lives of your family I feel sorry for you..........

Navy Pride · 06-23-08, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

So I take it you are against trials for accused criminals on the grounds that your family members might get killed in a crime.

That is quite a reach............I guess I should just consider the source.......

rsixing · 06-23-08, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

That is horse **** and left wing spin and talking points...........Its outrageous to try and block terrorists phone calls into this country because they might be talking to and American Citizen............I nor my family nor any of my Conservative friends feel threatened or live in any fear............Again more partisan politics..........

If you have that little value for the lives of your family I feel sorry for you..........

The only reason you disagree is because you are being used as a tool of extremist right wing live-in-fear rhetoric NP. And to declare you don't live in fear ignores the width and breadth of your posts.

And why "block" terrorist phone calls? Don't you mean intercept?

I have no issue with intercepting incoming terrorist phone calls, it's not a violation of their rights to do that. What I have issue with is warrantless eavesdropping by the gov't under the guise of the WoT. It's abridgement of our rights and if I understand constitutional law (and maybe I don't) such constitutionally falls under illegal search and seizure when used against U.S. citizens and is performed based on assumption and fear.

Of course my position would be different if the gov't would pursue warrants to tap a phone but that seems too much "work". I wonder why that is.

And then giving the gov't broad sweeping authority, as is, sets up for gov't abuse. But as you have delineated you have no problem with the abridgement of your rights as long as it affords you, and your family, "safety". Sad for you. Sad for our nation.

View Poll Results: Read the intro and vote accordingly
yes	10	34.48%
no	11	37.93%
other	8	27.59%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode