WTF is this? Enemy combantant rule?

[Wheatmaster]

Read for yourself

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mak0602
Read for yourself

It's called the 4th Reich, Heil Bush!

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mak0602
Read for yourself

It's called the 4th Reich, Heil Bush!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mak0602
Read for yourself

It's called the 4th Reich, Heil Bush!

Comments generally reserved for those who lack the intelligence, willingness to learn, or patience to discuss any given issue.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mak0602
Read for yourself

It's called the 4th Reich, Heil Bush!

Comments generally reserved for those who lack the intelligence, willingness to learn, or patience to discuss any given issue.

 

[alchemize]

PS Digital that was not directed at your rolling eyes, but rather the Chicken Little comment.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: alchemize
PS Digital that was not directed at your rolling eyes, but rather the Chicken Little comment.

Oh

 

[Spencer278]

"The perception that the administration critics have, that innocent people were grabbed off the street, thrown in a black hole and are languishing, that's totally untrue," said David Rivkin Jr., a Washington lawyer who served in the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

He said the administration has done a thorough job ensuring that the detainees are threats to national security.

Well ok I'm sure we can trust bushes intelligence gathering.

 

[mfs378]

He said the administration has done a thorough job ensuring that the detainees are threats to national security.

Well if that's true, then why is there an objection to detention within the framework of the constitution?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: mfs378

He said the administration has done a thorough job ensuring that the detainees are threats to national security.

Well if that's true, then why is there an objection to detention within the framework of the constitution?

The constitution was writien by a bush of librals who didn't have to face terrorist. They didn't knew how good of a jury David Rivkin Jr., a Washington lawyer who served in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, would make so they foolishly assumend that a trial was needed and that more then one person should decidied.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

The constitution was writien by a bush of librals who didn't have to face terrorist. They didn't knew how good of a jury David Rivkin Jr., a Washington lawyer who served in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, would make so they foolishly assumend that a trial was needed and that more then one person should decidied.

What fools the original authors were. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[kylebisme]

He said the administration has done a thorough job ensuring that the detainees are threats to national security.

the way that is phrased makes it sound as if the guys were set up.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

This is nothing new. Heck they held kevin Mitnick for four years without a trial, right?
Apparently Constitutional rights only apply to the 'not guilty'

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The "rule" is BS.

A judge can hold someone without bail if they are a danger.

What this is about is making sure citizens are denied their RIGHT to trial. If they are guilty, they can be locked up. If the govt. is just guessing, then they are out of jail AS THEY SHOULD BE.

People who encourage this behavior are traitors to the rest. I hope the court shoots this to hell.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Article [V.]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article [VI.]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

[GrGr]

Responding to abusive detention of persons without legal authority, public pressure on the English Parliament caused them to adopt this act, which established a critical right that was later written into the Constitution for the United States.


Habeas Corpus Act

1679

An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas.

WHEREAS great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody, any of the King's subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King's subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation.

etc

nulllink

---------
---------

FINDLAW:

John Ashcroft's Subpoena Blitz:
Targeting Lawyers, Universities, Peaceful Demonstrators, Hospitals, and Patients, All With No Connection to Terrorism

By NOAH LEAVITT

Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004

Over the past two weeks, the Justice Department has issued two intensely controversial sets of subpoenas. The first targeted peaceful demonstrators in Iowa. The second targeted medical caregivers in Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

None of the targets of these subpoenas is alleged to have anything to do with terrorism.

etc.

link

----------

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: mfs378

He said the administration has done a thorough job ensuring that the detainees are threats to national security.

Well if that's true, then why is there an objection to detention within the framework of the constitution?

The constitution was writien by a bush of librals who didn't have to face terrorist. They didn't knew how good of a jury David Rivkin Jr., a Washington lawyer who served in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, would make so they foolishly assumend that a trial was needed and that more then one person should decidied.

We're supposed to believe someone who can't even write English to understand the reasoning behind the U.S. Constitution??

And, are you somehow trying to imply that Bush was a liberal some 230 years ago?

 

[kylebisme]

wow conjur, way to get totally fixated on aesthetics and completely miss the point.

 

[Bleep]

The old enemies of the state rule that was used by almost all dictators past and present.
Bleep