Bush allowed to detain Americans without charge

[Nastie_Bowie]

It appears that a panel of 3 judges disagree with you.

I'll go with the judges.

As far as I'm concerned, ol' Jose gave up his civil rights when he went to Pakistan and trained with Al Queda.

Go ahead and yap about civil rights while guys like this plot to kill as many innocents as they can. Brilliant. Do you understand the concept of shooting yourself in the foot?

:lol:

[Dondrei]

It appears that a panel of 3 judges disagree with you.

I'll go with the judges.

As far as I'm concerned, ol' Jose gave up his civil rights when he went to Pakistan and trained with Al Queda.

Are you saying that committing a crime makes you lose your civil rights? All of America's founding fathers disagree with you.

I'll go with the founding fathers.

[Nastie_Bowie]

What part of ...

Military act
Wartime
Treason

don't you understand?

There is a big difference. Civil rights do not apply.

Put the bastage up against the wall and shoot him

[Dondrei]

Democracy? That's dead nowadays... It's pure dictatorship with a democratic fassade (sp?)

That's an interesting point. Some things about the position of President of the United States disturb me. Far more than political leaders in other Western countries, the U.S. President is almost mythical in stature. Despite the valiant efforts of America's founding fathers (who had read their Cicero).

People look to the President like some omnipotent force guiding America. Look at the way people turned to him (looking for someone to give them hope and understanding) after September 11, or (looking for someone to blame) after Katrina. The fact is that both are pretty much beyond his control.

The President now apparently able to keep prisoners under whatever conditions he feels like, without even the consultation of the senate. He is largely immune to oversight. And it has always disturbed me that the President has guards who are trained to take a bullet for him. That sounds more like the protection offered to a Sultan than a President.

[Dondrei]

What part of ...

Military act
Wartime
Treason

don't you understand?

There is a big difference. Civil rights do not apply.

Put the bastage up against the wall and shoot him

None of those things put the man outside of the Geneva Convention. Or even U.S. law. Being charged with treason doesn't abdicate your rights. Even in wartime. The founders of America were pretty damn careful to ensure that didn't happen.

Incidentally, as far as wars go, this once is pretty puny and pathetic. I don't see why we'd ditch centuries-old pillars of democracy and start acting like our enemies in order to fight two old men and a donkey in Afghanistan when we didn't do it when fighting the Russians or the Nazis.

[Nastie_Bowie]

And he gets judges to back him up!

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

:lol:

[Nastie_Bowie]

None of those things put the man outside of the Geneva Convention. Or even U.S. law. Being charged with treason doesn't abdicate your rights. Even in wartime.

It does put it in the hands of the military. Whole different set of rules, in case you haven't noticed. The ACLU can't twist things out of shape in a military court. Thankfully.

I don't see why we'd ditch centuries-old pillars of democracy and start acting like our enemies in order to fight two old men and a donkey in Afghanistan when we didn't do it when fighting the Russians or the Nazis.

You really dont have a clue, do you?

[Dondrei]

You really dont have a clue, do you?

It was hyperbole. Do you really think that a puny little terrorist organisation with no home nation or serious military equipment is as big a threat as the U.S.S.R., the world's biggest country? With more weapons than any other nation outside of the U.S., including piles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Or Nazi Germany, a heavily armed fascist regime that conquered all of Europe and held the world by the throat? Attack the substance of my claim, not the language.

[Nastie_Bowie]

It was hyperbole. Do you really think that a puny little terrorist organisation with no home nation or serious military equipment is as big a threat as the U.S.S.R., the world's biggest country? With more weapons than any other nation outside of the U.S., including piles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Or Nazi Germany, a heavily armed fascist regime that conquered all of Europe and held the world by the throat? Attack the substance of my claim, not the language.

bla bla bla!

:rolleyes:

[TheUnchosen]

There's two perspectives in this argument,
The big picture and the small picture.

The small picture is that this guy is a terrorist and shouldn't be given any sort of rights cos he doesn't care about society and so society shouldn't care about him.

The big picture is that a ruling of this magnitude is one very small step in the wrong direction.

A ruling like this will allow future judges to hold citizens without a trial and that's a very dangerous thing. That's a straight spit in the face of the American Constitution.