Allowing the underware bomber his civil rights only strengthens America!

NigelTufnel said:
Who decides what is and what is not an act of war during the WOT? Who decides which persons should be handed over to the military after being apprehended?
Click to expand...

this hurts me greatly, having to agree with Nigel, but I'm in no way comfortable at all with a government that can label me a domestic terrorist without due process, then deny that due process so I can defend myself in any court. I'm also not comfortable with a government agency deciding that they can assassinate me, or any other American, because they've determined that i'm some threat to national security. A decision of which the process that decision comes from is not open to public scrutiny.

welcome to your police state.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Who decides what is and what is not an act of war during the WOT? Who decides which persons should be handed over to the military after being apprehended?
Click to expand...
The same folks who make the decisions to arrest someone or not, and to charge him with what. That would be local jurisdiction guided by stated protocols to move up the chain as justified.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this hurts me greatly, having to agree with Nigel, but I'm in no way comfortable at all with a government that can label me a domestic terrorist without due process, then deny that due process so I can defend myself in any court. I'm also not comfortable with a government agency deciding that they can assassinate me, or any other American, because they've determined that i'm some threat to national security. A decision of which the process that decision comes from is not open to public scrutiny.

welcome to your police state.
Click to expand...

There is due process. If you're found with a smoking gun in your hand next to a dead body, don't expect to be treated like you just J-walked.
 
Jarod said:
Here is the deal..

One of the resaons many Islamic Extreemists hate America is because of the freedoms our government does not userp from any people. They hate freedom to behave any way contrary to there interpertation of the Koran, and they expect ALL governments to adopt policies that enforce those restrictions on freedom.

Our Constitution limits the Government from taking certian rights without following proper procedures, regardless of who you are and what you are accused of doing. The very fact that we provide these protections illistrates how strong we are, we are willing to fight fair while they are not, and we will still win.

Compromising our principals in the name of some possable measure of safety is not the American way and to do so would be an insult to the men and women who have given there lives to defend the very freedom some are suggesting we so casually dismiss.
Click to expand...

It's UNDERWEAR, you dolt.
 
Southern Man said:
And we had a war on poverty; that wasn't an actual war either.

Look I don't agree with the way we fight wars without an official declaration, but we've done so since the inception of the UN. Nor do I agree with use of the term "war" for obvious civil issues. But the fact is that the WOT is an actual war, in spite of the fact that there isn't a political territory or well defined political head that we are at war with.

And, since its a war, wartime rules apply.
Click to expand...

Last I was told was that we were no longer engaged in a war on terror (by my 1stSgt in Iraq). So, no he gets a civilian trial.
 
Southern Man said:
Congress doesn't declare war anymore, yet we're still in a state of war. They appropriate funds for it. It's called the "War on Terror", so a terrorist act is obviously an act of war.
Click to expand...

The war on terror is a buzzword, not an actual war. The government can't just declare a "war on burglary" and suddenly try every burglar in military courts.
 
Damocles said:
Did you know that while War Declaration is in the Constitution that there is no proscribed method of doing that? Appropriating funds for a "war" can easily be construed as "declaration." Just like voting to "approve" aggression in Iraq was taken as the same.

It has always been my position that we should make an official declaration before going to war so that we do not have Senators undermining the war by being "for it" before they are "against it" or they only thought they were voting for it as a diplomacy tool... I believe that if they had to do this war would happen just a bit less.
Click to expand...

You declare war against nations. Not against concepts. Even if congress had declared a "war on terror" it would be just an act of silliness.
 
Southern Man said:
By committing a terrorist act. :palm:
Click to expand...

You can't make a crime, declare war against that crime, and then suspend civil liberties for it. You declare war on NATIONS. Terrorism IS NOT A COUNTRY. It isn't even an organization, and he wasn't acting on orders from an organization or a country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top