• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

Read the intro and vote accordingly


  • Total voters
    20
Now that the Supreme Court has sealed the success of the unending Democrat quest to release terrorists by defying more than half a century of precedent, inventing rights for foreign terrorists under our Constitution, and sending us back into the pre-9/11 Democrat Stone Age of counter-terrorism where we fight wars with ACLU rules and arrest warrants rather than our military, will the left's dangerously stupid love affair with militant Islam give us a sequal to 9/11...after 7 years straight of preventing terrorist attacks by fighting and detaining terrorists?

-
Hummmmmm, lets see, BONG!!!! WRONG!!!!! As usual!!!!!!!!
:spin::spin::spin::spin:
-
There are 4 DEMS and 4 Repukes and 1 independent so how can you blame this voting **** on the Dems? It most likely was decided by a Repuke that now hates bush and all Cons.
-
Take a deep breath, two asprins and get back to us when you get something right!:roll:
 
jihaad.gif


You are a real piece of work Champs.....
 
-
Hummmmmm, lets see, BONG!!!! WRONG!!!!! As usual!!!!!!!!
:spin::spin::spin::spin:
-
There are 4 DEMS and 4 Repukes and 1 independent so how can you blame this voting **** on the Dems? It most likely was decided by a Repuke that now hates bush and all Cons.
-
Take a deep breath, two asprins and get back to us when you get something right!:roll:


You are clueless.....First of all a Republican does not have to be a Conservative and Soutar and Kennedy are not........
 
First of all a Republican does not have to be a Conservative

I agree with you here. In fact you don't go far enough. To be a Republican today means you have to disregard and hold in contempt most parts of the Conservative Ideology. Modern Republican Ideology is often the anti-thesis to Conservatism.
 
I agree with you here. In fact you don't go far enough. To be a Republican today means you have to disregard and hold in contempt most parts of the Conservative Ideology. Modern Republican Ideology is often the anti-thesis to Conservatism.


Well there are more Republicans who are Conservative then there are Democrats......I personally don't belong to either party myself or to any party for that matter..........
 
Well there are more Republicans who are Conservative then there are Democrats.

That doesn't say much. Neither party is truly Conservative. At best the GOP can claim at times it is socially Conservative. The past 7 years of GOP rule have shown it to be equal if not more fiscally liberal then the Democrats.

I personally don't belong to either party myself or to any party for that matter.

Aside from your rampant defense of anything the GOP does and your predictable democrats = bad comments, sure you're not a Republican. And I'm not a mammal. :2wave:
 
That doesn't say much. Neither party is truly Conservative. At best the GOP can claim at times it is socially Conservative. The past 7 years of GOP rule have shown it to be equal if not more fiscally liberal then the Democrats.



Aside from your rampant defense of anything the GOP does and your predictable democrats = bad comments, sure you're not a Republican. And I'm not a mammal. :2wave:


You really need to get out more my left wing friend..........I have disagreements with Republics on several issues like Spending and Immigration but I don't agree with democrats on any issue.........
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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..........:roll:
 
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..........
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:

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..."
 
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..........
 
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.......:roll:
 
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.
 
So the constitution has nothing to do with rights and the rule of law but instead is focused solely on seeing to it that people may be incarcerated completely at random, without cause or evidence and held indefinately without any recourse? Interesting interpretation.
The rule of law is a good thing. Due process is a good thing. The right of a human being to defend himself against false charges with the best possible defense is a good thing. And I for one am not enough of a coward or a fool to willingly sacrifice them because someone (erroneously) thinks that it will make me safer.
 
If we get attacked, it will be because Bush has been so successful in getting the whole world to hate America.

Good going Bush
 
And if I were discussing terrorists I would agree with you aqua. I was addressing NP's claim that democrats in the Congress are obstructing catching terrorists. I understand the uproar against the SCOTUS from the right and the abject fear however that NP's claim is nothing but his extreme right wing rhetoric based on fear-mongering and attempt at casting dem's in Congress in a broad sweeping negative light.

And how does posting famous slogans from Founders about giving up liberties for security refute his claim that Democrats in the Senate are "obstructing catching terrorists?"

Trying to help trial lawyers sue telecom companies into ruin for sticking their necks out to prevent terrorism by helping us intercept foreigner to foreigner communications is not "obstructing the catching of terrorists?"

Relentlessly stirring up bogus hysteria against Gitmo to get hundreds of terrorists released isn't "obstructing the catching of terrorists?"

Repeatedly delaying, interfering with, and sabatoging troop funding isn't "obstructing the catching of terrorists?"

YouTube - Senate Minority Leader Reid: "We killed the Patriot Act."
 
If we get attacked, it will be because Bush has been so successful in getting the whole world to hate America.

Good going Bush

:roll:

Even if you pretend there weren't decades of Islamic terrorist attacks (not to mention the eight years of persistent and unanswered al Queda attacks) pre-dating Bush's presidency, your contention here would still mean that Bush, in 9 months, without doing anything that logically could have set him apart from traditional American policy regarding the Islamic world, angered them so much that they got into a time machine and went back to the Clinton years-the period in which we know the 9/11 plot began-and set in motion the slaughter of thousands of American civilians to take place just after Bush took office...and the thousands of Muslims who poured into the streets to dance on 9/11 would also have to be something other than a sign that the Islamic world already hated us.

In other words, your partisan falsehoods don't withstand even the most remotely serious scrutiny. :liar2

Try again.
 
There are 4 DEMS and 4 Repukes and 1 independent so how can you blame this voting **** on the Dems?

:lol:

If you can tame your rabid hatemongering long enough to literately interpret my post, you will see that you, as always, are hysterically, mindlessly condemning things you have simply failed to comprehend.

It is a fact that Democrats side with releasing terrorists on every issue in which it is a factor, but I did not attribute this court ruling to Democrats, I attributed it to the Supreme Court.

Try again.
 
Back
Top Bottom