Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Bush allowed to detain Americans without charge

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Pier, Sep 9, 2005. | Replies: 50 | Views: 1650

  1. Pier

    Pier IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Bush allowed to detain Americans without charge

    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4230738.stm

    More links:
    Wiki
    CNN



    When are you Americans stop letting all your civil liberties taken away one by one in the name of "increased safety" and "anti-terrorism"??
    This isn't going to make the world one bit safer.

    And I see the same thing happening in Europe now.

    Grr pIER
  2. Technetium

    Technetium IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    I agree. The entire political power structure in this country needs to go. It is time for the poor to rise up and kick out the tyrants. Revolution is likely the only viable solution now.
  3. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    But you see, we're safe from the terrorists now and this rock in my pocket keeps tigers away.
  4. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,559
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    It's ridiculous. Detaining "unlawful combatants" captured in a war is marginally defensible at best (although I don't particularly agree with it), but detaining an actual citizen of the US in the same manner is just plain unconstitutional.

    What is it going to hurt to give him a trial?
  5. Broshious

    Broshious IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    How much do you want for this rock?
  6. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    They probably have too weak a case to prosecute successfully ...

    I imagine that this ruling will be quickly heading toward the Supreme Court.
  7. KillJoyBob

    KillJoyBob IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    It's definitely a set back, but as llad12 pointed out, this is just one step in judicial review. I'll reserve my ranting until all avenues of judicial enquirey have been exhausted.

    I think compared to the Executive and Legislative branches of government, the Judicial branch is doing rather well. ;)
  8. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,759
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    472
    I have the same concerns. If we were talking about John Walker Lindh, I would have been perfectly happy to see him executed - but Padilla was arrested stepping off a plane. I have no doubts about his guilt, but the "Brave New World" we're in needs some serious, and perhaps heartless/totalitarian, consideration before we just blithely accept it. I don't seriously think we'll see death squads hunting for Ill anytime soon... But when Hillary can investigate opponents' FBI files already, what is to stop opponents from being detained at the airport and indefinitely incarcerated?

    Teddy Kennedy is on the terrorist watch list, BTW.

    Nothing, and I think it's about damned time to have it. The plain truth is, any belief I had in a swift justice system vanished long ago. His status has been fought over in courts since day 1.

    However, I'd be perfectly happy to make it a military or sequestered trial if they are really concerned about the sensitivity of evidence; intel can hold up perfectly well in a military court when a New York lawyer would use it as toilet paper. That's why very few of the tricksy ACLU types wanted to work in Gitmo hearings - a lot less "freedom" than civilian courts afford.

    And for those of you who say that a military court equates a kangaroo court, please make sure you're tried in the bouncy one...
  9. Garbad_the_Weak

    Garbad_the_Weak IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    I agree - this is the end of democracy as we know it. Someone has to stop these conservative judges.

    All in favor of electing Michael Moore as the sole interpretor and enforcer of civil liberty say aye!

    Garbad
  10. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
  11. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I say we start putting only previously deceased candidates on the ballots. That way they can't screw anything else up.
  12. Stevebo

    Stevebo Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I reckon make anyone going for a high government position serve 10 years in jail beforehand to pre-emtively punish them for assorted crimes they will commit once in office.
  13. Myrakh-2

    Myrakh-2 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,954
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Well, it's all about power.

    The destruction of the World Trade Center a while ago has put all those who want power on the uplift --- "terrorists" are suddenly popping up everywhere, so they must be fought at all cost. Even in germany, where we haven't seen a (real) terrorist incident in quite some time, the government is now "fighting terrorism", just like everyone else in the US and EU.

    It's almost like a "we have to shoot these people" --- "you are crazy, you can't shoot people!" --- "they are terrorists" ---"oh, give me a gun, I'll help you".

    It's just the perfect situation to get more power. The US is just going overboard, but they have a real incident working for them. There've been terrorist groups in some European states for a long time, so it's difficult to use them *now*, and (again) germany hasn't seen a terrorist incident for a long time. So the european governments have to work more carefully/slowly, but they use terrorism just like the US.

    The WTC isn't "ours", but some of the involved criminals have moved through Europe --- so there's the connection they need to use the WTC in Europe as well, if the usual obscure, undefined "terrorist threat" isn't sufficient.

    Where's a John Sheridan when you need one? :)
  14. Nastie_Bowie

    Nastie_Bowie Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with al Qaeda.

    Source

    Keep defending the people that would kill you with no remorse, whatsoever, fools.
  15. Technetium

    Technetium IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    If there is proof that they want to kill you or I, then they should be charged with a crime. Again, what is so hard about that concept?

    What you are basically saying, whether you realize it or not, is that government should have the right to arrest and imprison anyone they want, for whatever reason they want.

    "Don't like Bush? Fine, you're under arrest, and we'll just claim some obscure "national security" reason which, under the law, we don't have to provide any proof whatsoever to the public for."

    Tyranny, plain and simple.
  16. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" or the pact between the government and its citizens?

    You want to throw out his Constitutional rights ... the right to a speedy trial; the right for the accused to face his accusers, and the right to counsel. Guaranteed rights that supercede all other laws.

    The right to trial has been given to free men since Magna Carta.

    Do you prefer to return to the medieval days of the 12th century?



    If you take away his rights, then you take away our rights.


    Tell me Nastie ... who is playing the fool here?
  17. Freet

    Freet IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Nastie,
    Under no circumstances does a civil discussion include calling the participants "fools".
  18. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,759
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    472
    Nasty, you ought to catch a clue when Ill and I are in agreement on something. This isn't about foreign Islamists, this is about treatment of U.S. Citizens. If we allow detention without trial it is the next step towards losing our system of justice. We've indirectly lost the right to a speedy trial already... and do you think for a second that either party would stop at <real> terrorists, when there's so many political enemies that would be fun to imprison?

    Perhaps what causes this lack of perspective is that people often like to consider the justice system as being a sham anyways when it suits their biases. But Padilla doesn't have to be brought to trial in a Simpson-esqe 3-ring circus environment with the leftie lawyer crowd coming out of the woodwork to grandstand. But he does need to be put on trial and evidence presented.
  19. Stevebo

    Stevebo Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Firstly if there is any proof that they do want to kill people then charge them, try them and then lock them up.

    The main issue of detention without charges is that the government could lock up ANYONE. With this ruling the government could come to your house tonight, take you away and lock you up for the next 20 years and never have to tell you or anyone else why. Innocence or guilt have nothing to do with it, if a politician wants to have you locked up even if there is no evidence anywhere he can now have you jailed for the rest of your life. OK, you're not a terrorist and have no plans to kill people (i assume) but that means nothing to a ruling like this. Further to that you never know what you will have for a future government, and this ruling has just removed a massive check and balance against a tyrannical government that wishes to abuse its power.
  20. Generator Of Chaos

    Generator Of Chaos IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Democracy? That's dead nowadays... It's pure dictatorship with a democratic fassade (sp?)


    If the man IS indeed guilty of terrorrist actions, then trial him, and if undoubtebly guilty, kill him on spot as far as I care...
    But, at least PROVE he's guilty...

Share This Page