Noted "cut and run" lefty liberal says we should close Guantanamo...today

The rights granted us by the Constitution must apply to us all, and the writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> applies to all, regardless of citizenship.

<blockquote>he privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. - The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9</blockquote>

Last I checked, there is no rebellion, unless you count Congressional Republicans against Bush, and we haven't been invaded by a hostile army.

The Constitution DOES NOT apply to people captured outside our Country. That you think it does is a perfect example of why we can not win with dems in charge.
 
The rights granted us by the Constitution must apply to us all, and the writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> applies to all, regardless of citizenship.

<blockquote>he privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. - The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9</blockquote>

Last I checked, there is no rebellion, unless you count Congressional Republicans against Bush, and we haven't been invaded by a hostile army.


You do realize its actually saying that Habeas Corpus CAN BE suspended for our own citizens if public safety requires it. Not sure how you can read that and interpret that it it applys to foreign born terrorists captured outside of our borders. If HC can be suspended for our own citizens, it most definately can be suspended for non-citizens.
 
You're just a Rush Limbaugh parrot with no mind of your own. You just keep repeating what other people tell you. It's sad, really.

What is sad, we have people like you who are more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists rather then defeating them
 
What is sad, we have people like you who are more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists rather then defeating them

I want to be harder on the terrorists than you do, trust me. The point is that you are an idiot, and you talk out of your ass...I haven't said a word about strategy in regards to the war on terror, yet you assume you know my position?

You're dumber than i thought :rofl: :rofl:
 
I want to be harder on the terrorists than you do, trust me. The point is that you are an idiot, and you talk out of your ass...I haven't said a word about strategy in regards to the war on terror, yet you assume you know my position?

You're dumber than i thought :rofl: :rofl:

Given your arrogrance, insults, and anger - you are a typical Bush hater who only wants to talk about the doom and gloom

Sorry if I point out the good news and facts about those who only want to undermine the war and the President
 
Actually, there isn't any money in representing these people. They're salaried and appointed to represent them. Nor is the issue notariety. These people could have very well-paying jobs in the private sector. They take the lesser salaries BECAUSE they believe in the Constitution's protections.

You assume that because someone has decided that these people are a threat that they are, actually, a threat. There is no adjudication of status. There is no accountability for the assessment. Government has never been known to be trustworthy.... hence the protections we have under the Constitution. Why should anyone trust Bush's assessment of someone being a threat? He's been wrong about everything else.

No one should be dragged off to jail and denied even the right to contact an attorney. We don't "disappear" people here. At least we never did. We're not a banana republic... yet. And with that comes greater responsibility to account for decision-making.

There most certainly IS accountability. Let one of those prisoners so much as get a bent eyelash and it's front page news.

And it isn't a matter of trusting Bush. He isn't making the arrests;therefore, not deciding who is and who is not held in confinement.

These prisoners are not US citizens, and not covered by the Constitution. They are detained enemy combatants.

What I haven't seen and would like to is "enemy combatant" redifined to suit the current environment. Obviously, they are not soldiers in the army of another nation; yet, they are waging war all the same. You can't just turn enemy combatants loose to go right back to where they left off. That amounts to providing the enemy with reinforcements.

If the laws need to be changed to reflect a terrorist enemy, then so be it. But they don't need to be changed to that enemy's advantage.
 
Given your arrogrance, insults, and anger - you are a typical Bush hater who only wants to talk about the doom and gloom

Sorry if I point out the good news and facts about those who only want to undermine the war and the President

1) I am not a Bush hater. I actually voted for Bush in 2004.

2) I do not believe in economic "doom and gloom"

So what the fuck is your dumbass talking about?
 
1) I am not a Bush hater. I actually voted for Bush in 2004.

2) I do not believe in economic "doom and gloom"

So what the fuck is your dumbass talking about?

You have a knack for sprewing the Dems talking points - strange for a non Bush hater
 

Forum List

Back
Top