 |
Since even the majority opinion is that habeas can be suspended by Congress during times of war ;and the fact is... even if Imperator Anthony Kennedy doesn't like it;that Congress did indeed pass the provisions of the law in question... then how can he assert that Congress acted unconstitutionally ?
Anyway I hope Justice Kennedy contributes to the printing of pocket sized Miranda pamphlets in each language of the nations our soldiers are deployed in combat.
Hello again, prog:
I don't think you were around when I argued these points earlier. So, while I'm waiting for the sun to come out on my beach, I'll reiterate them here for your edification.
I don't disagree with you about the brutality of our enemy's. They're really bad people... Being a fellow of the Jewish persuasion, I have a special dislike these people.
But, our justice system isn't based upon how BAD the people are we're trying. Noooo, it's based upon how GOOD we are.
In OUR system of justice, we give rights to the worst of the worst, not because of who THEY are, but because of who WE are, and what WE stand for.
excon
Sorry Ex let me again give my counterpoint. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. At the time I told you our enemies would attempt to defeat us using our system against us just like Mordred did to Camelot. This action if left to stand will bring Miranda rights in battle , applying civilian rules of evidence to armed combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the end of preemptive action against terrorists.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The correct reading of the Constitution is that habeas can be suspended by Congress during times of INVASION OR REBELLION. Not, as you so casually put it - WAR. In fact, the court found that that specific provision had not been met. And, I don't disagree with them. We weren't invaded and nobody rebelled.
It's a legal document. I think it means what it says. You shouldn't be so LIBERAL in your reading of it.
excon
9-11 wasn't an invasion ?
Quick quizz
Who said this :
A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No, 9/11 was an attack. An invasion looks different - a LOT different.
I don't know who said it, but if it's not part of the Constitution, it ain't law.
excon
Using this logic, why did we not grant this right to the Germans, the Japanese, the Nazi's,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The Koreans, or the Viet Cong?
What, did these Justices finally come the their senses, and realize how wrong we have been in all these other conflicts?
I don't think so.
This decision had nothing to do with the constitution, and everything to do with the thumbing of noses, at the President and his Administration. The goal is to insure that we are defeated in Iraq, so that the Dems can laugh and shout "we told you so".
It is a disgrace, and in fact, I still say it could be grounds for charges of treason.
The actions of an individual or individuals, to undermine the President, and the Military, during a time of war.
Jefferson said it and was applying it while he was President to a situation much less severe than an invasion of the United States .
Like tom said, I'm not angry, just bitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Last I checked the constitution read thusly:Quote:
Incidentally, American freedom applies to anyone in our country or anyone in our custody. Some of those Jihadist scum have been in captivity for six years without due process.
I don't see anything in there for al-Qaida.Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'd say all those terrorists on 9/11 - and every continued attempt since - constitutes an invasion and public safety is at stake. Anyway, if you haven't read Scalia's dissent you should. If you ask me, it's Kennedy just being opportunistic again. He got conservative there for a while but now he smells another changing of the guard so he's shifting leftward again. He's doing his part to help "restore America's image in the the world." I don't care nearly as much about our image as I do our safety, and this was a stupid, stupid mistake.
We're already 'defeated' in Iraq. And NO ONE thinks it's at all funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
If you listen to the libs, your answer is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
If you look at the truth, and pull your head out of the sand, the real story is much different.
If you listen to what the Officers and Soldiers have to say, we have not lost, nor are we losing, but the truth has never mattered to the left, especially if it does not fit into their twisted plans to socialize this Great Nation.
The left wants us to loose, at any cost, and that is downright shameful.
We supposedly went to Iraq to liberate. In reality, we invaded and have become an occupying army the Iraqis want out. Graft and other profiteering have drained resources that should have gone into Iraq's infrastructure. And now we're caught in the middle of a religious and tribal conflict that we created.
It's OK, I understand how difficult it is for anyone to admit when they are wrong.
It is much easier to keep the blinders on, stay focused on the message "we have lost" and just ignore what the people who are there and fighting have to say about the situation.
It is much easier to ignore the voices of the people who live in Iraq, who tell our soldiers how much they appreciate what we have done, and what we are doing.
Instead, just keep paying attention to the Libs, who aren't there, who don't even know the progress that has been made, and who don't want to know that ANY progress has been made because dammit, it just does not fit into their ideals or what they want to happen.
The real truth, is that were it not for the Libs jumping on board with the environmental whaco's back in the 70's, we would have started obtaining our own oil over 30 years ago.
Had that happened, we would not be depending on any Middle Eastern Countries for our oil, and we would not have to worry about protecting OUR interests over there.
We would be able to just sit back, and watch them all kill each other, destroy their own oil fields, and fight over who has the correct religion, and it would not effect us in the slightest.
We HAVE to have their oil, and they know it, which puts us at a huge disadvantage of having to try to "police" that area of the world, so our nation can continue to exist.
It is the failed policies of the left, that put us in this position to begin with.
If those environmentalists had been listened to - way back in the 70s - we wouldn't need so much of 'their' oil to begin with. Even if we hadn't found a solution to our love for gas guzzling cars (I loved my 69Charger and wish I still had it :o ) we could have much better, or at least as good, methods for heating houses, supplying electricity, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
The failed policies of the right continue to keep us dependent on oil and other disappearing or environmentally damaging energy sources.
Please tell me, exactly what failed policies on the right have kept us dependent on oil?
The failure to invest in 'green' tech (wind, solar, geothermal... ) or even pretend to support them, while continuing to provide subsidies to oil and coal.
Are you saying that the "'right" needs to invest in green tech?
I didn't know it was up to politicians to invest?
I thought we had a free market system, where these type of investments were up to the private sector, I had no idea that the politicians needed to invest.
Perhaps we should forward this message to congress?
Of course politicians 'invest.' That's what the subsidies oil and coal get. It's also things like $1/yr leasing to pump oil out of an area.
OK, thing are getting much clearer to me now.
The politicians are paying the subsidies for oil and coal.
And to think that all this time, I thought they were just using our tax dollars.
Which crazy right winger do you think makes the biggest investment?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 PM. |