You are a fanatic...
Court smacks down Bush
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
You must dream of an S&M encounter with Hillary as much as you are obsessed with her.
<img src=http://www.hillary.org/hillary/dominatrix.jpg>
<img src=http://www.hillary.org/hillary/dominatrix.jpg>
Quote from ratboy88:
this coming from a member of the Hillary brigade. enjoy her koolaid and whatever else she finds in there, bon appetit.. i got a new name for her... Digger!!!
Let's focus on this case. It poses a difficult constitutional question. On the one hand, it seems clear that we all should be worried about any President having the authority to arrest and detain people indefinitely just on the assertion that they were aiding a terrorist group. If prosecutors can be dead wrong about something pretty straightforward, like say whether a stripper was raped by a group of lacross players, they can certainly be wrong about interpreting ambiguous records on their PC and concluding they are terrorists.
On the other hand, it is a bit naive to say, charge them in civilian court and try them or let them go. Often such people will have been uncovered using methods of intelligence gathering that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping secret or which wouldn't pass muster in civilian court. Is it really good public policy to give terrorists the same rights as US citizens merely because they managed to get into the country? Doesn't that make them more rather than less dangerous? And what about US citizens who are also terrorists? How do we handle them?
There is Supreme Court precedent that terrorists in the country illegally can be tried by military courts and executed. That was what was done to a group of German sabotuers caught here during WW II. It could be argued that any foreign terrorist here legally had in fact committed visa fraud, since he would have denied being a terrorist and hence, he should be treated as being here illegally. Clearly that argument is a bit circular, as someone has to determine that he is in fact a terrorist.
Personally, I would be comfortable with reserving habeas corpus for citizens and lawful permanent residents and relegating others to military tribunals. If you are here on a visa, it's probably not a good idea to be doing things that make people suspect you of being a terrorist.
On the other hand, it is a bit naive to say, charge them in civilian court and try them or let them go. Often such people will have been uncovered using methods of intelligence gathering that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping secret or which wouldn't pass muster in civilian court. Is it really good public policy to give terrorists the same rights as US citizens merely because they managed to get into the country? Doesn't that make them more rather than less dangerous? And what about US citizens who are also terrorists? How do we handle them?
There is Supreme Court precedent that terrorists in the country illegally can be tried by military courts and executed. That was what was done to a group of German sabotuers caught here during WW II. It could be argued that any foreign terrorist here legally had in fact committed visa fraud, since he would have denied being a terrorist and hence, he should be treated as being here illegally. Clearly that argument is a bit circular, as someone has to determine that he is in fact a terrorist.
Personally, I would be comfortable with reserving habeas corpus for citizens and lawful permanent residents and relegating others to military tribunals. If you are here on a visa, it's probably not a good idea to be doing things that make people suspect you of being a terrorist.
And you're a Socialist whose afraid to debate facts.
Where is Paul wrong? Where is the Constitution wrong?
Get a tight grip.
My argument is not about Paul, though he is too old to handle the rigors of a presidency.
My point is the way that Paul supporters here act like fanatics...
Oh, and I am not a socialist, so there, nya, nya, nya, nya, nyan nya...
My argument is not about Paul, though he is too old to handle the rigors of a presidency.
My point is the way that Paul supporters here act like fanatics...
Oh, and I am not a socialist, so there, nya, nya, nya, nya, nyan nya...
Get a tight grip.
My argument is not about Paul, though he is too old to handle the rigors of a presidency.
My point is the way that Paul supporters here act like fanatics...
Oh, and I am not a socialist, so there, nya, nya, nya, nya, nyan nya...
See, it is your fanaticism that projects in the way you have a black and white view of things.
I agree with some socialist practices, disagree with others, same with capitalism.
We as a country function best when we are not to either extreme...
My argument is not about Paul, though he is too old to handle the rigors of a presidency.
My point is the way that Paul supporters here act like fanatics...
Oh, and I am not a socialist, so there, nya, nya, nya, nya, nyan nya...
See, it is your fanaticism that projects in the way you have a black and white view of things.
I agree with some socialist practices, disagree with others, same with capitalism.
We as a country function best when we are not to either extreme...
If there is no case, no legal grounds that he broke any U.S. laws, then at best, deport him. To my knowledge, any terrorist action, or planning a terrorist act is a violation of some U.S. law...so it becomes a matter of the US system of law and order. (See Fred Thompson on info of how Law and Order works 
)
But locking him up without any chance at a fair trial, is something I would expect out of Iranians, or Mexican jails, or Israel, etc.
Not America, at least not the way we preach to the world how fair and just we are...
We handle terrorists the same way as we would handle a gang member or gang leader. If we have evidence they broke the law, if we can prove it in a court of law, we try to prosecute according to the rules of law.
Anything less is not really truly American in spirit or practice, it is the very beginning of a fascist state.
Bush always says they hate us for our freedom, which I think is BS, but part of our freedom and our principle is rule of law, and justice.
That needs to be applied as much as we can equally, and if we have no factual case, then deport him, at best, but holding him for years without due process in any manner is not right.
It is such a dangerous ground to approve of incarceration simply because we "think" he is a terrorist, but are unable to prove it.
We put mobsters in jail, and we find ways to get evidence on them and people to testify against them....so what is the problem?
If we could simply make this what it is, a law and order situation, then our justice system, following the law as they do their job, will be just fine.
Just think if Hillary go in, and she decided to incarcerate Rush Limfat or Man Coulter for being a terrorist...simply because she wanted to.
Hmmm....maybe not such a bad idea after all...
)But locking him up without any chance at a fair trial, is something I would expect out of Iranians, or Mexican jails, or Israel, etc.
Not America, at least not the way we preach to the world how fair and just we are...
We handle terrorists the same way as we would handle a gang member or gang leader. If we have evidence they broke the law, if we can prove it in a court of law, we try to prosecute according to the rules of law.
Anything less is not really truly American in spirit or practice, it is the very beginning of a fascist state.
Bush always says they hate us for our freedom, which I think is BS, but part of our freedom and our principle is rule of law, and justice.
That needs to be applied as much as we can equally, and if we have no factual case, then deport him, at best, but holding him for years without due process in any manner is not right.
It is such a dangerous ground to approve of incarceration simply because we "think" he is a terrorist, but are unable to prove it.
We put mobsters in jail, and we find ways to get evidence on them and people to testify against them....so what is the problem?
If we could simply make this what it is, a law and order situation, then our justice system, following the law as they do their job, will be just fine.
Just think if Hillary go in, and she decided to incarcerate Rush Limfat or Man Coulter for being a terrorist...simply because she wanted to.
Hmmm....maybe not such a bad idea after all...
I get it now. Its ok when Liberal crackpots sound off - because they represent 'mainstream' thought.
But when independents support a Constitutionalist position, they're branded "fanatics".
Thanks for clearing that up.
Its clear you dont know what you are and where you stand.
You're a moderate Statist. Libertarians are Paleo Conservatives or Constitutionalists.
Moderate Statism (high tax, big Government, declining liberty) is widely referred to as Socialism.
But maybe you support minimal tax, minimal Government, and maximum liberty?
If you're not a moderate, you're not reasonable.
Thats been the battle cry of Establishment Shills for a very long time.
Problem with that argument - it thrives on shadowy innuendo and rumor.
What about our platform is 'unreasonable' to you? What SPECIFICALLY.
Yes, its clear Americas endless wars, endless entitlement programs and endless attacks on Citizens Rights have projected our nations meteoric rise into annals of histories Greatest.
If you actually knew our history, you'd know a constitutionalist position is neither extreme or unreasonable.
Constitutionalist support the individuals right to make their own decision.
Socialists want Big Brother to tell people what to do.
Why do you need someone to tell you what to do? Dont you trust yourself enough to make your OWN Decisions???
Look whose the 'fanatic' now.
What rational do you use to support some Constitutional guarantees, while plainly disregarding others?
Is it just a matter of political convenience for you? Or do you actually think the Constitution should be enforced in total ?
I get it now. Its ok when Liberal crackpots sound off - because they represent 'mainstream' thought.
I you think liberals represent main stream thought, you are nuts.
But when independents support a Constitutionalist position, they're branded "fanatics".
Independents, of which I happen to be registered as, support positions, not old farts who can't get elected.
It is one thing to argue principles, another to be drinking at the well of Ron Paul.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You are welcome, any time.
Its clear you dont know what you are and where you stand.
Horseshit.
You're a moderate Statist. Libertarians are Paleo Conservatives or Constitutionalists.
Gobbledygook.
That you have to label the way you do is indication of black and white fanaticism.
Moderate Statism (high tax, big Government, declining liberty) is widely referred to as Socialism.
More gobbledygook.
But maybe you support minimal tax, minimal Government, and maximum liberty?
Balance, is what I support.
Not extremist thinking relative to the current situation.
If you're not a moderate, you're not reasonable.
You are the one coming off as anything but moderate, so I guess you are confessing to your being unreasonable.
I concur.
Thats been the battle cry of Establishment Shills for a very long time.
Yawn...
Problem with that argument - it thrives on shadowy innuendo and rumor.
Soapbox...double yawn.
What about our platform is 'unreasonable' to you? What SPECIFICALLY.
It is radical relative to the way things are now.
Slow, moderate move back to center is reasonable, the Paulites are nothing at all, in any way close to being practically reasonable.
Yes, its clear Americas endless wars, endless entitlement programs and endless attacks on Citizens Rights have projected our nations meteoric rise into annals of histories Greatest.
More soapbox....triple yawn.
If you actually knew our history, you'd know a constitutionalist position is neither extreme or unreasonable.
Any change that is radical, relative to current situation, even going back to living like it was 1789 is extreme.
Go back to outdoor plumbing, no modern medicine, slavery, no air conditioning, live like a Menonite...
All extremist thinking, you just happen to be one brand, a Paulite.
Constitutionalist support the individuals right to make their own decision.
Oy vey.
Socialists want Big Brother to tell people what to do.
Oy vey.
In true socialism, there is no big brother.
Geez...
Why do you need someone to tell you what to do? Dont you trust yourself enough to make your OWN Decisions???
I do make my own decision, thanks, and I have decided that you are a Paulite kook!