Court smacks down Bush

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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 :D :D :D )

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...
More...

You articulate the standard Democrat approach, which is to treat terrorism as a criminal matter. After 9/11, thoughtful people realized that it was imperative to reassess that approach, as it badly failed us. More accurately, the institutions, eg FBI, CIA, and their staff failed us. The problem is, we can tolerate such failures in domestic law enforcement, because the consequences are limited. With terrorism, the consequences of failure can be monumental.

No one is happy with the concept of detaining people without habeas protection, but it is unrealistic and naive to state that if we can't prosecute them, we should just let them go. What if prosecuting them would necessarily reveal the existence of undercover agents or the ability to break codes or monitor communications? What if evidence of their complicity was obtained by warrantless foreign searches?

The mafia analogy is partially relevant, but the mafia is not going to set off nukes in major cities. One of these guys might.
 
I don't know about it being a purely democrat view, but I agree that the terrorist attacks on the U.S. should have been handled as a criminal matter vs. turning America into a Country led by fear mongering.

The 3 oz of liquid, strip searching TSA, who hire the unemployable in most cases, has done a lot to our way of life. The "fight them over there before we have to fight them here" nonsense satisfied a great number of Americans, and proved to be just another ridiculous extreme talking point. Why should they come here if we keep sending our children over there?

The discussion about keeping prisoners without any proof that would hold up in a court of law is like saying let's just hang anyone that we can't prove broke any laws. This is not the America I grew up in, and I hope it never turns to that.

We can run thousands of drug users and dealers through the judicial system, why can't we do the same with a few hundred people suspected of being part of some possible group that might be thinking about doing something at some possible time in the future?

Being anti Iraq war does not mean that you have to be some extreme liberal, as proven by the fact that such a small percentage of Americans support the stupid thing. And, it doesn't mean we don't support the troops, that is just another very stupid talking point that doesn't even deserve discussion.

If we keep concenration camps without applying some justice, then we appear much like the real bad guys from ww2.

If we can't rely on the evidence that brought these people to Gitmo, and we can't rely on the intelligence that was blamed for the Iraq war, then we have a lot bigger problem than the few hundred suspects waiting for something to happen.

c
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

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.
More...

The real problem is who defines "terrorist".

PS I think the rulling is good.
 
Quote from cgroupman:

...

The discussion about keeping prisoners without any proof that would hold up in a court of law is like saying let's just hang anyone that we can't prove broke any laws. This is not the America I grew up in, and I hope it never turns to that.

We can run thousands of drug users and dealers through the judicial system, why can't we do the same with a few hundred people suspected of being part of some possible group that might be thinking about doing something at some possible time in the future?...


c
More...

I understand your point of view, and as I said, I'm not crazy about the government having the authority to detain people without a right to challenge it in federal court. It's not quite as simple as not having proof that will "hold up in court" however. Let's say the government had the ability to eavesdrop on Osama bin Ladin and learned that someone was an al qaeda operative. Do we want to have to choose between letting him go and revealing how we got the evidence?

It's another good reason to limit immigration and visas from muslim countries.
 
(Defining terrorist)

Good point, a criminal is a criminal. If he takes out a building with explosives, then you can call him whatever you want, the crime is still a crime. I personally don't like the idea of labeling, but it seems to be working for those who are capitalizing on it.


c
 
One could make the argument that by allowing Muslims from middle eastern countries to come here, would allow us to potentially obtain information about their terrorist cells.

You know, take them into a room, force them to listen to Rush Limfat, Man Coulter, Sean Hammity for a day, and they would tell you anything just to stop the insanity of the right wing crazies...

Oh, and to your what if about Bin Laden...

What if we had simply followed Israel's practice of locking the pilot's cabin doors in airplanes....

Doh!

We don't have to surrender our freedoms to be safe from our own government's spying on us, that is a complete logical fallacy...

Really, here is what cracks me up about ET klans, they need to have unregistered guns and ammo which is why we have school shootings, why kids have gun accidents and kill themsevles, gang problems, etc., need to ride motorcycles without helmets, they need to smoke and drink like fish...they won't mandate technology that exists to prevent drunk drivers, they allow pollutants and chemicals in our air, food, and water...but they are scared to death of Muslim terrorists.

Makes no sense, but there you go...the klan is terrified of Muslim terrorists, but is fearless about drunk drivers, gun accidents, cancer from pollutants, etc.

I got it, they fear terrorists because they destroy capital investments like the Twin Towers, human life?

Expendable as long as there is profit in it for corporations or as long as dying is by the drug of choice...

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I understand your point of view, and as I said, I'm not crazy about the government having the authority to detain people without a right to challenge it in federal court. It's not quite as simple as not having proof that will "hold up in court" however. Let's say the government had the ability to eavesdrop on Osama bin Ladin and learned that someone was an al qaeda operative. Do we want to have to choose between letting him go and revealing how we got the evidence?

It's another good reason to limit immigration and visas from muslim countries.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

One could make the argument that by allowing Muslims from middle eastern countries to come here, would allow us to potentially obtain information about their terrorist cells.

You know, take them into a room, force them to listen to Rush Limfat, Man Coulter, Sean Hammity for a day, and they would tell you anything just to stop the insanity of the right wing crazies...

Oh, and to your what if about Bin Laden...

What if we had simply followed Israel's practice of locking the pilot's cabin doors in airplanes....

Doh!

We don't have to surrender our freedoms to be safe from our own government's spying on us, that is a complete logical fallacy...

Really, here is what cracks me up about ET klans, they need to have unregistered guns and ammo which is why we have school shootings, why kids have gun accidents and kill themsevles, gang problems, etc., need to ride motorcycles without helmets, they need to smoke and drink like fish...they won't mandate technology that exists to prevent drunk drivers, they allow pollutants and chemicals in our air, food, and water...but they are scared to death of Muslim terrorists.

Makes no sense, but there you go...the klan is terrified of Muslim terrorists, but is fearless about drunk drivers, gun accidents, cancer from pollutants, etc.

I got it, they fear terrorists because they destroy capital investments like the Twin Towers, human life?

Expendable as long as there is profit in it for corporations or as long as dying is by the drug of choice...
More...

Is there a full moon or something?
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
It is one thing to argue principles, another to be drinking at the well of Ron Paul...
More...

Says the Fabian Socialist who fancies himself a 'reasoned moderate'.


Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

That you have to label the way you do is indication of black and white fanaticism.
More...

Oh, like the way you label me a 'Paulie fanatic'?

But that doesn't count cause ONLY Liberals have a monopoly on Truth Telling!!


Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Balance, is what I support. Not extremist thinking relative to the current situation.
More...

The current situation was brought on by the very extremist thought you now call "moderate"!!

- The Federal Reserve.
- The Income Tax.
- The "New Deal".

All Socialist wetdreams that fermented and rotted into the putrefied mass we now call the United States of America.

Those programs - be it Fed money creation or Gov Handouts - have been ABUSED ENORMOUSLY
AND NOW THREATEN THE VERY LIFE OF THE COUNTRY ITSELF.

These programs you tout as 'progressive' and 'ahead of their time' turned into a LIFE OF THEIR OWN and NOW OWN THE COUNTRY

WAKE UP.

This is why those "radical fanatics" we call the FOUNDING FATHERS made steadfast warnings to resist the enemy at the gate.

The Country is going down fast and most everyone with their head screwed on straight knows it.

We will be lucky to survive it with our basic Freedoms...



Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You are the one coming off as anything but moderate, so I guess you are confessing to your being unreasonable.
More...

No, Comrade. Im paraphrasing the intolerant mantra you live by.

IOW, if you dont agree with me and my principles, you're not credible...


Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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.
More...

There is nothing radical about the Constitution. And thats all we represent.

You and your ilk love to invoke the *idea* of the Constitution when it serves your political purpose.

But when the Bill of Rights stands against you opposed, you switch teams and deride Constitutional Defenders as 'radicals' and 'fanatics'.

This is whats known in political circles as being a Shill.


Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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.
More...

Who said anything about plumbing or modern medicine or air conditioning?? What is it about the Bill of Rights you dont get? Its quite clear for all to see.

Would you really be so glum if the Fed didn't inflate away your savings?

Or maybe you'd miss the IRS digging through your personal life with shovel and pick axe?


Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:


I do make my own decision, thanks, and I have decided that you are a Paulite kook!
More...

No, Comrade. Im just a Constitutionalist.

And if that makes me a "Kook" in your books, well, that just illustrates how far and how deep we've degenerated as a Country.

Take a look around. Like what you see? Like where we're going??

You keep voting for it, Francis.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

it is unrealistic and naive to state that if we can't prosecute them, we should just let them go.
More...

why do you think criminal laws and rules regarding burdens of proof, evidence, and trials exist? just for the hell of it? maybe teddy kennedy and his hippie buddies just screwing with you?

or maybe, do you think, they could have developed in response to thousands of years of abuses by people exercising the power of the state at whim for profit or revenge?

if there is no trial, who exactly determines that they are unfit for release?

as you correctly stated above, the morons making these decisions are the same class of people who tried like hell to lock 3 innocent students in a cell based on the uncorroborated assertions of a drugged-up prostitute. the same ones responsible for waco and ruby ridge. the ones that go after glaucoma patients for smoking the wrong plant. the same ones prosecuting "hate crimes" while ignoring the flood at the mexican border. and who may someday be under the command of president hillary.

would YOU trust hillary with the power to decide in secret whether AAA is fit or unfit for release, even if they can't "prove" anything?
 
Hillary, wielding the power that Bush has weaseled his way into obtaining in the name of National Security is the right wing's worst nightmare.

I bet AAA soils himself just thinking about it, wakes up in a cold sweat imagining Hillary in the office of the presidency abusing power the way Bush has...

Sweet dreams right wingers...

<img src=http://www.erosblog.com/sex-blog-pictures/hillary-dominatrix.jpg>
Quote from Madison:

why do you think criminal laws and rules regarding burdens of proof, evidence, and trials exist? just for the hell of it? maybe teddy kennedy just screwing with you?

or maybe, do you think, they could have developed in response to thousands of years of abuses by people exercising the power of the state at whim for profit or revenge?

if there is no trial, who exactly determines that they are unfit for release?

as you correctly stated above, the morons making these decisions are the same class of people who tried like hell to lock 3 innocent students in a cell based on the uncorroborated assertions of a drugged-up prostitute. the same ones responsible for waco and ruby ridge. the ones that go after glaucoma patients for smoking the wrong plant. the same ones prosecuting "hate crimes" while ignoring the flood at the mexican border. and who may someday be under the command of president hillary.

would YOU trust hillary with the power to decide whether AAA is fit or unfit for release, even if they can't "prove" anything?
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top