OT: US President (US Dom Players only) - Page 30

Bwaha · #1 November 11th, 2008, 06:59 PM

Thats what is happening right now to us, American citizens. Guys and Gals now is the time to speak out. Before we lose that right. Turn your radio to NPR, listen to the tragedy thats unfolding before us right now. Don't blow this, it could be the last gasp of our Republic. I'm not joking, I'm afraid.

chrispedersen · #2 November 11th, 2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bwaha

Thats what is happening right now to us, American citizens. Guys and Gals now is the time to speak out. Before we lose that right. Turn your radio to NPR, listen to the tragedy thats unfolding before us right now. Don't blow this, it could be the last gasp of our Republic. I'm not joking, I'm afraid.

Just curious, there are ten sections to the Patriot act. What is the wording that you are opposed to in it? Can you quote any of it? Can you explain what it supplanted? Or is this just a blanket "I hate everything connected with Bush"?

chrispedersen · #3 November 11th, 2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thejeff

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

Actually, they are, that is the thrust of Obamas decision, at least as floated at trial balloon.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of indefinite detentions. However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy. In the same article it said 250 of these were waiting to be released - but their home countries wouldn't take them.

Now, we bring them into the US and what happens next - we give them resident alien status? That is sheer.. brilliance. Yep, take terrorists that demonstrate a willingness to blow themselves up, and bring them to the united states.

sum1lost · #4 November 11th, 2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Quote:

Originally Posted by thejeff

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

Actually, they are, that is the thrust of Obamas decision, at least as floated at trial balloon.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of indefinite detentions. However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy. In the same article it said 250 of these were waiting to be released - but their home countries wouldn't take them.

Now, we bring them into the US and what happens next - we give them resident alien status? That is sheer.. brilliance. Yep, take terrorists that demonstrate a willingness to blow themselves up, and bring them to the united states.

You know, McCain was suggesting the exact same thing, oddly enough. You try them before deciding that they are terrorists, instead of jailing them.

chrispedersen · #5 November 11th, 2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1lost

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Quote:

Originally Posted by thejeff

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

Actually, they are, that is the thrust of Obamas decision, at least as floated at trial balloon.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of indefinite detentions. However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy. In the same article it said 250 of these were waiting to be released - but their home countries wouldn't take them.

Now, we bring them into the US and what happens next - we give them resident alien status? That is sheer.. brilliance. Yep, take terrorists that demonstrate a willingness to blow themselves up, and bring them to the united states.

You know, McCain was suggesting the exact same thing, oddly enough. You try them before deciding that they are terrorists, instead of jailing them.

As I said, I don't mind the idea of trying them. Flying them to the US and affording them the same protections of a US citizen is a huge expansion of judicial oversight, with not a shred of constitutional justification.

lch · #6 November 11th, 2008, 10:47 PM

Maybe he remembers a thing or two from being a P.O.W.

thejeff · #7 November 11th, 2008, 11:16 PM

What do you mean by "affording them the same protections of a US citizen"?

How does our criminal justice system distinguish between US citizens and foreigners? Are you suggesting a British citizen (for example) would have less protections in a US court if accused of a crime?

chrispedersen · #8 November 12th, 2008, 02:05 AM

Rights of a British citizen (consular access, jurisprudence etc) are covered under a whole host of agreements, treaties and laws that are already established.

An aide leaking that the Obama campaign *is going* to to shut down Gitmo. etc (as in original post) and making that determination in advance of choosing an attorney general, in advance of consulting with JCS, or your secretary of state, especially in the case of setting legal precedent is troubling.

Closing gitmo may *be* the best course of action. Bush tried to willy nilly establish a new set of rules; he was shot down - but just because Obama is making a diametrically opposite position doesn't mean it is the correct decision, and it doesn't mean it isn't a willy nilly decision. But I would rather have confidence that Obama has the participation of his team on this. I'd rather have the knowledge that the ramifications have been discovered - and on such a polarizing issue, I'd like him to explain the decision.

Some things require haste - the banking crisis. Somethings require deliberative speed.

llamabeast · #9 November 12th, 2008, 03:18 AM

America has built its self-image and place in the world on an assumption of having the moral high ground, of being a country with exceptional liberties. But in recent years it has been trying to do this while simultaneously committing astonishing human rights violations at Guantanamo. America would have no hesitation in condemning any other country guilty of the same things, and indeed the rest of the world has had no hesitation in condemning America. The damage to America's international reputation has been, in my opinion, enormous. It is hard to respect the morality of a country which tolerates such abuses. To be honest, even if you don't care a jot about human rights, it's worth putting considerable effort into fixing Guantanamo just for the foreign relations benefits it offers.

chrispedersen · #10 November 12th, 2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamabeast

America has built its self-image and place in the world on an assumption of having the moral high ground, of being a country with exceptional liberties. But in recent years it has been trying to do this while simultaneously committing astonishing human rights violations at Guantanamo. America would have no hesitation in condemning any other country guilty of the same things, and indeed the rest of the world has had no hesitation in condemning America. The damage to America's international reputation has been, in my opinion, enormous. It is hard to respect the morality of a country which tolerates such abuses. To be honest, even if you don't care a jot about human rights, it's worth putting considerable effort into fixing Guantanamo just for the foreign relations benefits it offers.

I agree with everything you said.