Armed and dangerous Hispanics -- help wanted!

A war allows lots of leeway. And whether you like it or not we are in a war. Basicly your complaint is that even though the system works as intended you don't like it.

The shame is that until Bush's war, wars were fought to protect our country and our rights. In Bush's war our rights have been limited and our country is less safe now than it was before. Since Bush's war is NOT the war on terror just why are we fighting Bush's war?
 
"They are tribal and it is tribalism that is at the root of so much evil."

Midcan5, is that a reference to Evangelicals? LOL::rofl:
 
A war should NOT allow a US citizen to be held for 4 years with no trial. And you asked which rights have disappeared, and I just told you.

Except his rights DID not disappear. That is a bald faced lie. No court agrees with you that his rights were lost. If they did that court would have ruled on the matter.

Now if you want to know about lost rights, try the courts that Clinton set up. The ones that allow the Government to seize Your property and your money and then you have to PAY the Government for the ability to try to prove you did nothing wrong. And all the Government need do is claim you fit a pattern, no evidence need be presented at all of ANY crime committed. Or the SECRET Courts that can try and convict a person with out them even being aware they were ever charged with any crime, then deported after their citizenship has been stripped.

Remind me of your outrage on these matters.
 
Here is a thought experiment: suppose during a war, some American citizens were found to be planning to carry out espionage or sabotage in the service of our enemy, and were arrested.

The question arises: should their trial be public, thus alerting our enemy that his agents have been captured? Or should it be in secret? Suppose the President decided it should be held in secret, although he was at first, after setting himself up as the final appeal, on record immediately after their arrest as saying that the defendants "were as guilty as it is possible to be" and thus had to die, preferably in a public hanging.

Suppose the trial were held in secret, before a military tribunal, and the defendants then hanged -- American citizens, mind you.

What would we call such a President?
 
Here is a thought experiment: suppose during a war, some American citizens were found to be planning to carry out espionage or sabotage in the service of our enemy, and were arrested.

The question arises: should their trial be public, thus alerting our enemy that his agents have been captured? Or should it be in secret? Suppose the President decided it should be held in secret, although he was at first, after setting himself up as the final appeal, on record immediately after their arrest as saying that the defendants "were as guilty as it is possible to be" and thus had to die, preferably in a public hanging.

Suppose the trial were held in secret, before a military tribunal, and the defendants then hanged -- American citizens, mind you.

What would we call such a President?

Wouldn't happen. And if it did he would have violated the Constitution and the law. The Courts would have to judge the individuals and the President does not have final say on their guilt, all he has is the final say on whether to pardon them.

Your speaking of Treason, a crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is clear what is required for that to be a guilty verdict.

Could the trial be in secret? Sure it could as long as ALL the laws and all the Constitutional protections are met. Further it would need to be meticulously documented. But here is the rub.... it is not going to stay secret if one meets all the legal and Constitutional protections. Further such a trial would have the right of appeal. Hard to keep that secret.

It could be DELAYED by legal means. That is what happened to the trials Larkinn is complaining about. The Legal system delayed them for different valid reasons. Speedy is subjective. There are legal means that can and do delay trials. Define "speedy".
 
RetiredGySgt: I think what you mean is, it couldn't happen under a good conservative Constitution-respecting President.

Well, that's as may be.

But the very thing I described (secret trial by military tribunal followed by swift executions) was indeed carried out on some American citizens during WWII under Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

So what we would call -- what we do call -- such a President is: a liberal.
 
"They are tribal and it is tribalism that is at the root of so much evil."

Midcan5, is that a reference to Evangelicals? LOL::rofl:

Peace 6348, not at all, I think we are all tribalists in a certain sense. But tribalism allows one to exclude the other and then do all things Sam Keen notes in the poem below. I thought it worth sharing.

"Start with an empty canvas
Sketch in broad outline the forms of
men, women, and children.

Dip into the unconsciousness well of your own
disowned darkness
with a wide brush and
strain the strangers with the sinister hue
of the shadow.

Trace onto the face of the enemy the greed,
hatred, carelessness you dare not claim as
your own.

Obscure the sweet individuality of each face.

Erase all hints of the myriad loves, hopes,
fears that play through the kaleidoscope of
every infinite heart.

Twist the smile until it forms the downward
arc of cruelty.

Strip flesh from bone until only the
abstract skeleton of death remains.

Exaggerate each feature until man is
metamorphasized into beast, vermin, insect.

Fill in the background with malignant
figures from ancient nightmares – devils,
demons, myrmidons of evil.

When your icon of the enemy is complete
you will be able to kill without guilt,
slaughter without shame.

The thing you destroy will have become
merely an enemy of God, an impediment
to the sacred dialectic of history."

***

"We first kill people with our minds, before we kill them with weapons. Whatever the conflict, the enemy is always the destroyer. We're on God's side; they're barbaric. We're good, they're evil. War gives us a feeling of moral clarity that we lack at other times." Sam Keen


http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/books/books.php?id=8401
 
Since the creation of Social Security with only a few 2 year periods here and there the Democrats had complete control of both the House and the Senate until 1994. Even after 1994 the Republicans did not have a working majority in the Senate. The same claim now by you dems that "those damn republicans can block us" applied during the years from 1994 to 2006 except it would be "those damn Democrats".

And as a point of order, from 1952 to 1994 the democrats controlled the House every year, And usually controlled the Senate as well.

you are an idiot--- you use the term "complete control. very loosely--comparable to the "complete control" the Dems now have bof the congress.
 
Since the creation of Social Security with only a few 2 year periods here and there the Democrats had complete control of both the House and the Senate until 1994. Even after 1994 the Republicans did not have a working majority in the Senate. The same claim now by you dems that "those damn republicans can block us" applied during the years from 1994 to 2006 except it would be "those damn Democrats".

And as a point of order, from 1952 to 1994 the democrats controlled the House every year, And usually controlled the Senate as well.

you are an idiot--- you use the term "complete control. very loosely--comparable to the "complete control" the Dems now have of the congress.
 
you are an idiot--- you use the term "complete control. very loosely--comparable to the "complete control" the Dems now have of the congress.

Simple test for you , provide us ANY attempt by democrats from 1946 to 1994 trying to pass a bill that would make SS money only used by SS. If you find one provide us with the vote tallies on the bill.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top