Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

You are a pathetic, scared person with a small mind, unable to grasp fundamental principles of decency and fair play.

The next step to your "lock 'em all up because some might be dangerous" is "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

No, I am just not so narrow minded as to not consider that people like Bush and McCain might actually know what they are talking about;

McCain Condemns Supreme Court Guantanamo Ruling

John McCain weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts at a town hall meeting Friday, calling the 5-4 decision ?one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.?

?These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,? he said. ?Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it.?

Looks like Bush is hinting at legislation to keep the detainees right where they are so this whole thing could be moot soon.

Bush disagrees with court's Guantanamo ruling

President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.

Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We'll do this with this in mind ? to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
ROTFLMAO!!!!

Quoting GWB as a source of ethical advice and knowledge.

And McCain is counting on the same weak cowards like yourself that Bush found so easy to manipulate through fear.

Sorry, but you've outed yourself as a person who would sell his integrity for a false sense of safety, and oblivious to the fact that he is poorer for the bargain.

If you are unprepared to offer human rights and justice to others, you have no right to demand, or even expect them for yourself.

"First they came for the suspected terrorists, and I said nothing. then they came for......".
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

You are a pathetic, scared person with a small mind, unable to grasp fundamental principles of decency and fair play.

The next step to your "lock 'em all up because some might be dangerous" is "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

No, I am just not so narrow minded as to not consider that people like Bush and McCain might actually know what they are talking about;

McCain Condemns Supreme Court Guantanamo Ruling

John McCain weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts at a town hall meeting Friday, calling the 5-4 decision ?one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.?

?These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,? he said. ?Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it.?

Looks like Bush is hinting at legislation to keep the detainees right where they are so this whole thing could be moot soon.

Bush disagrees with court's Guantanamo ruling

President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.

Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We'll do this with this in mind ? to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

Oh for christs sake will somebody please just shoot him already???
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
You know what I love about this? All you Jack Bauer wannabes can piss and moan and talk about "being tough on terrorism" and come up with whatever bullshit justification you like, but at the end of day, that's ALL you can do. A Supreme Court that is by no means liberal has said you're full of shit. Whatever fantasy world you construct about the "liberals" on P&N, the fact is that you have been beaten in the only way that really matters.

Oops, maybe you should base your worldview on REALITY next time. Just a thought :)
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Gotta love McCain on the subject of the detainees- he makes the same assumptions as Bush fanbois-

?These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,? he said. ?Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it.?

Yep, every one is and always has been an enemy combatant, based on the fact that the govt chose to lock them up. No other criteria is necessary, because we all know that our govt is never wrong and would never lie to us about anything. We don't need no stinking trials or evidence, because we have faith, because we jus' *know* it's true.

Washington, Jefferson, Madison and the rest would denounce these fools in a heartbeat. They'd be outraged, and rightfully so.

And the whole bit about former detainees returning to combat is very much the same kind of horsepuckey-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...dly_returned_to_battle

Seven individuals... well, maybe, kinda-sorta, at least we think so- at least that's what they want us to believe...

Think about it. All the sweeping claims, all the handwringing over keeping america safe, the bluster, the false dilemmas boil down to this- seven out of hundreds released.

I find it truly stunning that people who rail against govt in nearly every other particular seem to think this is just fine, apparently because it's their boy, GWB, doing it. What a pathetic bunch of well-indoctrinated chumps.

Maybe the answer is for so-called "leftists" to support this, call for even more- the wingnuts would be against it vociferously and instantly, comparing it all to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, screaming "Free! Freedom! and Liberty!" at the top of their lungs...
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what I love about this? All you Jack Bauer wannabes can piss and moan and talk about "being tough on terrorism" and come up with whatever bullshit justification you like, but at the end of day, that's ALL you can do. A Supreme Court that is by no means liberal has said you're full of shit. Whatever fantasy world you construct about the "liberals" on P&N, the fact is that you have been beaten in the only way that really matters.

Oops, maybe you should base your worldview on REALITY next time. Just a thought :)

The reality is that the USSC's job is not to physically protect American citizens at home or abroad, but rather to rule on legalaties, nothing more.

Those are two completely different things.

Thank you.

Chuck
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: chucky2
The reality is that the USSC's job is not to physically protect American citizens at home or abroad, but rather to rule on legalaties, nothing more.

Those are two completely different things.

Thank you.

Chuck

Maybe you should tell your buddy Scalia that since his opinion summary that I saw had a whole lot of worrying about violence and little about the law.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Maybe the answer is for so-called "leftists" to support this, call for even more- the wingnuts would be against it vociferously and instantly, comparing it all to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, screaming "Free! Freedom! and Liberty!" at the top of their lungs...

Did you read my post above, the bottom link to Glenn Greenwald?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what I love about this? All you Jack Bauer wannabes can piss and moan and talk about "being tough on terrorism" and come up with whatever bullshit justification you like, but at the end of day, that's ALL you can do. A Supreme Court that is by no means liberal has said you're full of shit. Whatever fantasy world you construct about the "liberals" on P&N, the fact is that you have been beaten in the only way that really matters.

Oops, maybe you should base your worldview on REALITY next time. Just a thought :)

The reality is that the USSC's job is not to physically protect American citizens at home or abroad, but rather to rule on legalaties, nothing more.

Those are two completely different things.

Thank you.

Chuck

Fair enough, but at least the armchair lawyers (and more than a few actual lawyers) can shut up about at least one aspect of our treatment of prisoners being legal. The question of whether or not the "protect America" argument has any merit is a separate debate.

Although I can't help but notice that with a very few exceptions, it's not the job of the folks holding the Jack Bauer position on this issue to protect Americans either, yet that doesn't seem to stop them from spouting off about it at every opportunity, and at great length.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gotta love McCain on the subject of the detainees- he makes the same assumptions as Bush fanbois-

?These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,? he said. ?Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it.?

Yep, every one is and always has been an enemy combatant, based on the fact that the govt chose to lock them up. No other criteria is necessary, because we all know that our govt is never wrong and would never lie to us about anything. We don't need no stinking trials or evidence, because we have faith, because we jus' *know* it's true.

Washington, Jefferson, Madison and the rest would denounce these fools in a heartbeat. They'd be outraged, and rightfully so.

And the whole bit about former detainees returning to combat is very much the same kind of horsepuckey-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...dly_returned_to_battle

Seven individuals... well, maybe, kinda-sorta, at least we think so- at least that's what they want us to believe...

Think about it. All the sweeping claims, all the handwringing over keeping america safe, the bluster, the false dilemmas boil down to this- seven out of hundreds released.

I find it truly stunning that people who rail against govt in nearly every other particular seem to think this is just fine, apparently because it's their boy, GWB, doing it. What a pathetic bunch of well-indoctrinated chumps.

Maybe the answer is for so-called "leftists" to support this, call for even more- the wingnuts would be against it vociferously and instantly, comparing it all to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, screaming "Free! Freedom! and Liberty!" at the top of their lungs...

If McCain was smarter, he'd realize that "first obligation" does not mean "only obligation". Hell, that's a difference that a lot of people would do well to remember.
 

newnameman

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2002
2,219
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: chucky2
The reality is that the USSC's job is not to physically protect American citizens at home or abroad, but rather to rule on legalaties, nothing more.

Those are two completely different things.

Thank you.

Chuck

Maybe you should tell your buddy Scalia that since his opinion summary that I saw had a whole lot of worrying about violence and little about the law.
Maybe you should try actually reading his dissent?

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Maybe the answer is for so-called "leftists" to support this, call for even more- the wingnuts would be against it vociferously and instantly, comparing it all to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, screaming "Free! Freedom! and Liberty!" at the top of their lungs...

Did you read my post above, the bottom link to Glenn Greenwald?


I skimmed it- mea culpa. Greenwald is, of course, much more eloquent than I. Thanks for the link.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what I love about this? All you Jack Bauer wannabes can piss and moan and talk about "being tough on terrorism" and come up with whatever bullshit justification you like, but at the end of day, that's ALL you can do. A Supreme Court that is by no means liberal has said you're full of shit. Whatever fantasy world you construct about the "liberals" on P&N, the fact is that you have been beaten in the only way that really matters.

Oops, maybe you should base your worldview on REALITY next time. Just a thought :)

The reality is that the USSC's job is not to physically protect American citizens at home or abroad, but rather to rule on legalaties, nothing more.

Those are two completely different things.

Thank you.

Chuck

SCOTUS doesn't pass laws, It interprates them. They didn't make the decision to turn GTMO into devil's Island, and they didn't pass laws to codify that status. The President and his accomplices in Congress did that. As a court of appellate jurisdicition for these kinds of cases SCOTUS has to wait for a case to be filed challenging the rules that were laid down by the political branches of government and wait for those cases to wind their way through the system.

GTMO is not a legal black hole, and that efforts by Congress to circumscribe the privilege with respect to "enemy combatants" were unconstitutional as they did not comport with the requirements of the Suspension Clause and did not adequately preserve the privilege of habeas.

At its broadest the ruling recognized that the inmates had fundamental rights of due process, reiterating SCOTUS's rulings in Hamdan and Rasul, and that the political branches of the US government, i.e. the President and the Congress, cannot pick and choose when and where fundamental constitutional rights and privileges will apply - that is a job for the Courts.

A habeas petition, by definition, is one that must be heard by a Court on an expedited basis. It may take some time to wind its way completely through the appeals process, and given this ruling, appeals will likely exhaust at the Circuit Court level. Second, when GTMO is closed and the detainees charged or remanded to a foreign country for release/charging - the habeas challenges will become moot, removing an entire layer of litigation.

Both presidential candidates have said they will shut down the prison.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what I love about this? All you Jack Bauer wannabes can piss and moan and talk about "being tough on terrorism" and come up with whatever bullshit justification you like, but at the end of day, that's ALL you can do. A Supreme Court that is by no means liberal has said you're full of shit. Whatever fantasy world you construct about the "liberals" on P&N, the fact is that you have been beaten in the only way that really matters.

Oops, maybe you should base your worldview on REALITY next time. Just a thought :)

The reality is that the USSC's job is not to physically protect American citizens at home or abroad, but rather to rule on legalaties, nothing more.

Those are two completely different things.

Thank you.

Chuck

not even your hero Bush agrees with you there chump.

nor Scalia.

 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Wow, just wow... lets not worry about the breadwinners, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children that were killed on 9/11 as a result of these terrorist asshats. Lets not worry about the Afghani civilians killed under the Taliban regime or in car bombings by insurgents in Iraq.

But yes, lets shed a tear for the breadwinner/companion terrorist asshole who chooses to go off to war and kill Americans or other people's family members instead of providing for his or her own family. Obviously THEY are the victims here... :roll:

Same goes for you. I like how you ignored the crowd of people earlier in this thread tearing you apart on this just to spout out some more worthless crap like this. Stop trying to argue that all the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. It's a lie and you know it. You are honestly trying to argue against the government having to show a cause for why they are imprisoning people for the rest of their lives. That's what you're arguing against. Do you see how absolutely insane that is?

People like you disgust me.

Interesting, 2 responses - neither of which made any substantive argument against my points = "a crowd tearing you apart"? I know you guys need to bunch up in little packs to work up the cajones to confront your betters but I don't count those two weak responses as being ripped apart. Whatever it takes to make you feel like a man I suppose little lemming, here's a pat on the head and a cookie. :)

It's pretty clear from your posts that you foolishly assume that all humans are a giant congo line of good but misunderstood souls, even those that would kill you and everyone around you without a moment of remorse or guilt. Honestly, I'd encourage you to put a few shivs in the hands of these poor misunderstood souls in Guantanamo and then give them a big old "love you man" hug. Let me know how that goes.

The prisoners in Guantanamo are being detained, questioned and judged by a military tribunal. They are not being beheaded, no bones are being broken, they are being fed and sheltered better than some American citizens. They are not, however, Americans - they are enemy combatants that have either attacked or supported attacks on Americans and our interests and are being held either to prevent them from causing further damage or because they are a source of information that can save American lives.

I suppose if a man breaks into your house, kills your dog and rapes your wife and daughter you'll be right there make sure he's got plenty of lube and serving cookies and milk since he's obviously a misunderstood victim of circumstance. Fortunately for all of us the security of this country isn't up to spineless pacifists like you. REAL men are out there right now doing a thankless job rounding up these terrorist assholes because they understand the lengths to which these animals will go to to kill Americans. They've only blow up buildings, boats, planes, cars, children, etc. and you people still welcome them to enjoy our protections and laws? Let's pay for a hot shot lawyer and pretend they are Americans, why not, you people don't seem to give a shit who immigrates here these days so why not let in a few terrorists. Maybe once they start blowing up Whole Foods and coffee shops you people will wake up. Then again, maybe if I run into this brick wall enough times it will eventually fall over. :)

<group hug!>
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Wow, just wow... lets not worry about the breadwinners, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children that were killed on 9/11 as a result of these terrorist asshats. Lets not worry about the Afghani civilians killed under the Taliban regime or in car bombings by insurgents in Iraq.

But yes, lets shed a tear for the breadwinner/companion terrorist asshole who chooses to go off to war and kill Americans or other people's family members instead of providing for his or her own family. Obviously THEY are the victims here... :roll:

Same goes for you. I like how you ignored the crowd of people earlier in this thread tearing you apart on this just to spout out some more worthless crap like this. Stop trying to argue that all the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. It's a lie and you know it. You are honestly trying to argue against the government having to show a cause for why they are imprisoning people for the rest of their lives. That's what you're arguing against. Do you see how absolutely insane that is?

People like you disgust me.

Interesting, 2 responses - neither of which made any substantive argument against my points = "a crowd tearing you apart"? I know you guys need to bunch up in little packs to work up the cajones to confront your betters but I don't count those two weak responses as being ripped apart. Whatever it takes to make you feel like a man I suppose little lemming, here's a pat on the head and a cookie. :)

It's pretty clear from your posts that you foolishly assume that all humans are a giant congo line of good but misunderstood souls, even those that would kill you and everyone around you without a moment of remorse or guilt. Honestly, I'd encourage you to put a few shivs in the hands of these poor misunderstood souls in Guantanamo and then give them a big old "love you man" hug. Let me know how that goes.

The prisoners in Guantanamo are being detained, questioned and judged by a military tribunal. They are not being beheaded, no bones are being broken, they are being fed and sheltered better than some American citizens. They are not, however, Americans - they are enemy combatants that have either attacked or supported attacks on Americans and our interests and are being held either to prevent them from causing further damage or because they are a source of information that can save American lives.

I suppose if a man breaks into your house, kills your dog and rapes your wife and daughter you'll be right there make sure he's got plenty of lube and serving cookies and milk since he's obviously a misunderstood victim of circumstance. Fortunately for all of us the security of this country isn't up to spineless pacifists like you. REAL men are out there right now doing a thankless job rounding up these terrorist assholes because they understand the lengths to which these animals will go to to kill Americans. They've only blow up buildings, boats, planes, cars, children, etc. and you people still welcome them to enjoy our protections and laws? Let's pay for a hot shot lawyer and pretend they are Americans, why not, you people don't seem to give a shit who immigrates here these days so why not let in a few terrorists. Maybe once they start blowing up Whole Foods and coffee shops you people will wake up. Then again, maybe if I run into this brick wall enough times it will eventually fall over. :)

<group hug!>

Dude, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Those that are incarcerated at Gitmo deserve some sort of legal protection/avenue, albeit I don't think anyone knows what that will eventually consist of.

Until then it will be an open issue, something that professionals and people smarter than you and I will sort out. And those that are guilty will be guilty, and those that arent wont be. At least something will be done and there will be no more limbo for these people to wait in.

until then, sit and spin. No one cares about your e-machismo.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

SCOTUS doesn't pass laws, It interprates them.

You know how sometimes you want to get out the 2x4 for common misconceptions?

The whole deal with the right-wing obsession with, and definition of 'bad judge behavior' as, "legislating from the bench" is like that.

I think the tens of millions of Americans on the right who rant about it rarely have any idea what they're talking about (excepting some legal scholars, but including the president).

In fact, I'm quickly becoming convinced that the right simply uses it as a weapon to get their own radical judges appointed, the same way they get elected to office by attacking 'tax and spend' liberals because it works on voters, even while they're really just grabbing power for their own hidden agenda, and taxing (when you include the debt) and spending more than the democrats.

You have an entire frickin' amendment which TELLS the court to find rights that are not explicitly stated in the constitution, but when the justices follow it, watch out.

When the Supreme Court 'discovers' the 'right to privacy' in Griswold about birth control pills, saying that the state needs to have some good reason if they want to deny people the right to use them, they're the ones following the constitution, recognizing that letting the state ban such an item for no particular reason is giving the state more power it doesn't have under the constitution. They famously use the word 'penumbra' to describe how rights can be broad. The right is wrong to rant about how they are 'legislating from the bench'.

By their standards, the constitution would have to say something about the right to birth control pills for the justices not to be 'legislating from the bench'.

It's crazy, but it works on voters in election campaigns to get them turning against 'those crazy liberal judges', so that the real crazies can get appointed.

It's notable that of the thousand of decisions, the right has only two main examples to use to make the attacks, Roe and the more recent case on Eminent Domain.

They seemed to think they'd have another with the end to sodomy laws in 2003, but that didn't catch on with the public outside of the far-right religious groups.

It's frustrating that they don't have any awareness of why the justices need to find rights beyond the literal list in the constitution at times, following its broader orders.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

I suppose if a man breaks into your house, kills your dog and rapes your wife and daughter you'll be right there make sure he's got plenty of lube and serving cookies and milk since he's obviously a misunderstood victim of circumstance.

You don't realize that typing that is exactly the same as admitting your views are imbecilic, and you are not to be listened to, by proving you have zero comprehension of the issues?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Wow, just wow... lets not worry about the breadwinners, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children that were killed on 9/11 as a result of these terrorist asshats. Lets not worry about the Afghani civilians killed under the Taliban regime or in car bombings by insurgents in Iraq.

But yes, lets shed a tear for the breadwinner/companion terrorist asshole who chooses to go off to war and kill Americans or other people's family members instead of providing for his or her own family. Obviously THEY are the victims here... :roll:

Same goes for you. I like how you ignored the crowd of people earlier in this thread tearing you apart on this just to spout out some more worthless crap like this. Stop trying to argue that all the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. It's a lie and you know it. You are honestly trying to argue against the government having to show a cause for why they are imprisoning people for the rest of their lives. That's what you're arguing against. Do you see how absolutely insane that is?

People like you disgust me.

Interesting, 2 responses - neither of which made any substantive argument against my points = "a crowd tearing you apart"? I know you guys need to bunch up in little packs to work up the cajones to confront your betters but I don't count those two weak responses as being ripped apart. Whatever it takes to make you feel like a man I suppose little lemming, here's a pat on the head and a cookie. :)

It's pretty clear from your posts that you foolishly assume that all humans are a giant congo line of good but misunderstood souls, even those that would kill you and everyone around you without a moment of remorse or guilt. Honestly, I'd encourage you to put a few shivs in the hands of these poor misunderstood souls in Guantanamo and then give them a big old "love you man" hug. Let me know how that goes.

The prisoners in Guantanamo are being detained, questioned and judged by a military tribunal. They are not being beheaded, no bones are being broken, they are being fed and sheltered better than some American citizens. They are not, however, Americans - they are enemy combatants that have either attacked or supported attacks on Americans and our interests and are being held either to prevent them from causing further damage or because they are a source of information that can save American lives.

I suppose if a man breaks into your house, kills your dog and rapes your wife and daughter you'll be right there make sure he's got plenty of lube and serving cookies and milk since he's obviously a misunderstood victim of circumstance. Fortunately for all of us the security of this country isn't up to spineless pacifists like you. REAL men are out there right now doing a thankless job rounding up these terrorist assholes because they understand the lengths to which these animals will go to to kill Americans. They've only blow up buildings, boats, planes, cars, children, etc. and you people still welcome them to enjoy our protections and laws? Let's pay for a hot shot lawyer and pretend they are Americans, why not, you people don't seem to give a shit who immigrates here these days so why not let in a few terrorists. Maybe once they start blowing up Whole Foods and coffee shops you people will wake up. Then again, maybe if I run into this brick wall enough times it will eventually fall over. :)

<group hug!>

OOPS! FART.

You just assumed that everyone who was incarcerated at Guantanamo was some sort of terrorist. You are attempting to force the argument towards some sort of false idea in which you can make a decent point because we're all talking about America hating assholes.

Unfortunately for you, we're talking about reality. In the real world, you're a xenophobic idiot that swallows right wing talk radio for breakfast. It's okay, you're stupid. This wouldn't matter to we who understand the world as it actually is, but for some reason you morons are allowed to vote. Because of this, I implore you to spend a few minutes learning about the world around you, learn about the constitution that governs you, and learn about how that might apply to the hilarious horseshit that you are attempting to pass off as America here. We would all be better off for it.

Other then that, you're a fucking idiot.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and just because I feel like it would give morons like you a big boner, I've been to Iraq. I spent 7 years in the military, and I participated in the war in 2003. So just in case you're wondering about what REAL men do, keep your fucking pants on... because you haven't the slightest idea.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

I suppose if a man breaks into your house, kills your dog and rapes your wife and daughter you'll be right there make sure he's got plenty of lube and serving cookies and milk since he's obviously a misunderstood victim of circumstance.

Are you suggesting that accused rapists should also be locked up indefinitely without charge or trial? If not, then what the fuck is your point?

All anyone wants is for accused "enemy combatants" to be given the same basic legal protections as accused rapists. You are an imbecile if you equate that with "assum[ing] that all humans are a giant congo line of good but misunderstood souls".
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
A Supreme Court that is by no means liberal has said you're full of shit. Whatever fantasy world you construct about the "liberals" on P&N, the fact is that you have been beaten in the only way that really matters.


If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

They did not do what was right they simply caved in to left wing whiners, the squeaky wheel got the grease, and did so only because judges in the US have zero accountability for their actions. It they were held accountable in any form for their decisions those prisoners at Gitmo would never see the light of day.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
This is one of those issues that spotlight the willingness of the Republicans to use "fear and loathing" to muster a cadre of support and how easily some buy into it. They make some people so afraid and full of hate that they are willing to suspend elements of modern civilization for revenge and a false sense of security.

For those of you that don't understand what you are allowing to happen, let's take a look at what has happened before when people allowed those in authority to condemn and punish by mere accusation.

The great with hunts of the middle ages were conducted by the largest single power structure of the time, The Church. Probably hundreds of thousands of people were accused of being witches and were killed based on no evidence, but mostly "confessions" gained from torture. The accusations included such "terrorists" acts as floods, plagues, crop failure, bad weather, deaths of livestock and children, and on and on. The Church made an art out of using "fear and loathing" to get the people to fall in line. Besides the obvious damage you might suffer from these terrorist acts, even your mortal soul was in jeopardy if you didn't support the efforts to get rid of these bad people. And since they were in league with the Devil, they were despicable.

Eventually, as the state began to replace The Church as the greater power structure, such abuses slowly began to fade; accelerated only as the will of the people replaced absolute monarchies. finally, civilization had advanced to the point that mere accusations could not condemn, confessions obtained by torture could not be used as evidence, and legal structures were devised that allowed a person to defend himself against false charges.

Today, we scoff at the idea that some old woman threw some eye-of-newt in a pot and caused a plague. But it was no laughing matter to the accused in times past.

It seems to me that many Republicans today would have us revert to those times where the mere accusation is a condemnation. Where torture is acceptable again. Where you can create a label and create a class of people under that label that you should automatically fear and loathe.

The current power structure that supports reversing these advances in civilization depends on those that they can make afraid and hate. It's sad enough when there are those that are just too lazy to support the human and legal rights that have for so long have defined us as morally just. But those who would discard the core values of our society out of fear or hatred for "the others" are morally bankrupt.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

Under you twisted logic, any juror that ever voted not to convict someone bears the responsibility for all future actions of that person, even if they were actually innocent of the original charge.

Sorry, but you have to be one sick puppy or just plain stupid to advocate such crap.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

As asinine as it sounds it does not change the fact that it is true and the zero accountability is our justice system is its biggest weakness, it is what lets offenders become repeat offenders.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

If life was fair and just, then for everyone of those detainees that gets released because of their ruling and kills a US soldier or civilian in an act of terrorism every member of the court that voted in favor of ruling would be in fact accomplices to murder and should face criminal charges.

That is the most asinine comment I can imagine. How can you possibly twist your brain to come up with this crap?

As asinine as it sounds it does not change the fact that it is true and the zero accountability is our justice system is its biggest weakness, it is what lets offenders become repeat offenders.

How does our justice system have no accountability? Where did all these people in jail come from?