Allowing the underware bomber his civil rights only strengthens America!

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
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.
 
He committed an act of war during war time. He should therefore be tried in an American military court.
 
Jarod said:
1) What makes it an act of war?
2) Congress has declared war?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

Ohh, I see, because pop culture and polititians call it a war, that is good reason to suspend Constitutional rights.
 
Jarod said:
Ohh, I see, because pop culture and polititians call it a war, that is good reason to suspend Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is our elected officials: Congress and the President, calling it the War on Terror. And the rules of warfare are different than they are for regular-old attempted mass murderers. :)
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, it is our elected officials: Congress and the President, calling it the War on Terror. And the rules of warfare are different than they are for regular-old attempted mass murderers. :)
Click to expand...

So was the War on Drugs a valid reason to suspend people's constitutional rights? The president called it a war!
 
Jarod said:
So was the War on Drugs a valid reason to suspend people's constitutional rights? The president called it a war!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

yet, you liberals have been compromising freedom for safety for decades. your hypocrisy is showing.
 
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...

I was pretty sure you'd throw the constitutional powers under the bus as soon as the 'war on terror' showed itself.
 
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.
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all. The Military Code of Justice is entirely in concert with the COTUS.
Click to expand...

and an airplane full of civilians in a public, non military environment, is considered a battlefield? I dont' think so. Your position pretty much does away with posse comitatus. Martial law more of your preference? Maybe you'd like to just swing in to full on totalitarianism?
 
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...
So were just supposed to forget about simple little things like the Constitution? I don't thik so! Homey don't play that.
 
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...

according to your uninformed opinion, that is.
 
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...

So its a war because you say so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top