I've thought this out and based on the folks on this board who feel strongly for the second admendment and agree how it is written, then turn around and feel Non-Us Citizens in Non-US territories should be awarded full protection of the US Constitution and basicallygrant them that provision as if they are citizens. Then since we grant them citizenship based and claim some how they are protected under geneva convention because they are "solders" on the battlefield, we can call them traitors. Once they go through interigations and are of no use, we can then execute them for being military personel, under the same protected cloak and shot at sunrise because they are now deemed traitors.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
I like this line of reasoning. Though it is as flawed as the thinking of those who would like to grant the rights of US citizens to our combatants.... it works for me.
I, too, am aghast at the decisions of our courts and the worries of some of our citizens that we are treating some of these combatants unfairly.
It has been proven that a goodly # these same combatants have taken advantage of our "system", gained their freedom, only to be released to re-join their terrorist cells and do more unspeakable acts, only to finally be met on the battlefield again by our troops and summarily killed like the enemy soldiers they were in the first place.
In this same vein of thinking, I was confused why Mr. John Phillip Walker Lindh was treated as though he maintained the rights of a citizen of the US. Once he aided and abetted those who were in armed conflict with the US, he voided any and all rights he had as a US citizen.
The bar of soap used to clean him up cost more than a bullet.
__________________
Days Full Of Clays...
NWTF, DU, SCI
I cant image the logic behind someone who supports unrestrictedRKBA, and then turns around and argues against the Government operating secret prisons and holding people indefinitely without trial or charges, regardless of nationality. Afterall, just because there is no evidence or chargesdoesnt mean they shouldn't be imprisoned, right?
It has nothing to do with granting them rights under our Constitution, IMO. It has everything to do with granting them the decency that should be granted every human being. We know there are innocent people being held in these prisons; we've seen the stories where some of them have been released after years in captivity because we had nothing on them. It's one thing to have prisoners of war and to hold them as long as is warranted. But this war on terrorism will drag on for years. How long is it OK to imprison them without granting them a trial? 10 years? 20? 30? I'm not saying that many of them are innocent, but there's no reason why we can't either charge them or release them. This indefinite imprisonment is ridiculous, and what this subject has to do with the right to keep and bear arms is beyond me.
How should our soldiers be treated if they're captured?
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
I would trust our military in doing what it feels is necessary to enemy combatants it feels are dangerous. Much rather safe than sorry,letting someone go on a technicality only to have them, eg.explode an IED, killing 5 marines on patrol.
In my view, erring on the side of OUR PEOPLE is better than erring on the side of those who want to kill us, but that's me.
In my view, erring on the side of OUR PEOPLE is better than erring on the side of those who want to kill us, but that's me.
Ah, one of those propaganda lines that makes ya want to stand up and salute and sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Of COURSE erring on the side of our peope is better than erring on the side of the terrorists. Is there anyone who believes otherwise? But how about this? How about -- and this may be a fatally flawed concept, I don't know -- WE DON'T ERR AT ALL! Seems like it shouldn't be so hard. We could use the above quoted line to argue that the Constitutional right to a fair trial for American citizens shouldn't exist.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
Wait a sec. Trials were set to begin and the court stepped in and ruled congress didn't define them well enough to give the military the jurisdiction to do that. So congress did exactly what the court demanded of them and laid all the ground work for the military trials to begin. Then instead of the process that the court demanded run it's course, they stepped in again and changed their mind. If anyone is delaying this crap it's the liberal lawyers slowing down the process by tieing this up in court and wasting time.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Some of the so-called detainees have been held for six years. Surely someone could have given them day in military court by now. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way the US did itduring WWII, the Korean War, Viet Nam and Desert Storm.The Bush bunch wanted to boost their images as fighters against terror so they came up with their version of a kangaroo court.It isreallya stretchfor thepresidentto claim that
"detainees"who are being held in US controlled territoryhave no constitutional rights.
It has been proven that some of the former "detainees" were guilty of nothing. They were soldby foreigners who wanted the reward money.There is the possibility thatsome of the present "detainees" did nothing wrong.It is a sad state of affairs when the SCOTUS has to step into a matter like this. In two previous opinions the court gave the administration fair warning, it was ignored. The worst part of the deal is that some or all of the bad guys will be released along with those who have done nothing wrong. It got this way because the Bushbunch wanted to do it their way.
The so called "detainees" could have been held in the war zones, been tried by a military court and sentenced to Ft. Leavenworth.
This has me a bit puzzled. When you take prisoners of war, they are simply held until the war is over and then sent home.But this is not reallly a war, so it will never end. What are we supposed to do with these guys? Keep 'em in limbo until they die?
I'm thinking of flip flopping!
