Miranda rights for terrorists

[Guest Dean_JC78]

And Bush was the biggest liberal president we've ever had until Obama came along...

Actually I totally agree with that comment right there. He and his dad are both left of center. I despise them both and put W up in my top 5 list of worst Presidents ever.

(1. FDR

2. LBJ

3. JFK

4. Carter

5. GW Bush)

The funny thing about W was that even though we was a big liberal and supported a lot of their policy, the left seems to have hated no Republican more. I mean Ron Maximus was more of a real conservative (with some liberal leanings but hey, whos perfect) and while he was hated, it was NOTHING like the hate they have for W. That I have never understood.

I also get a big kick out of libs that say Cheney was really running the show. Every Conservative in the Republic wishes all the time he really was running things as Cheney is a LOT more Conservative than W.

[Guest KevinM]

I don't think these enemy combatants have been denied any of these.

You don't think that someone who's liberty has been taken hasn't lost their liberty? You should look into the definition of the word.

The 5th amendment does indeed make exceptions for the detention for prisoners of war. But that isn't a blank check for the military and federal government to do whatever they want to a person.

Also, I am assuming you agree that American citizens cannot be locked away without due process, correct?

[Guest KevinM]

I also get a big kick out of libs that say Cheney was really running the show. Every Conservative in the Republic wishes all the time he really was running things as Cheney is a LOT more Conservative than W.

I don't know about "running the show" but I believe his "conservatism" was/is largely political pandering...

[leroy]

Some things to think about:

....

You cannot simply dub someone a terrorist/rapist/murderer without proof. ...There is ample proof to them that are willing to see that the "Radical Muslum" groups (Taliban, PLO, Hezbolla, Somalia Pirates) are indeed terrorists, rapists, and thugs. All you need to do is to take the testimony of eye witnesses (those that lived to tell the story -- they are rare), read accounts of it in foreign papers (american papers wont print it; it wont fit their political agenda). Or simply read history books(not the revisionist ones). If you care to look, you will find out that the attrocities that you are so worried about (which i think is good) have been and are being regularly perpetrated everywhere these guys are. Take a look at the Pakistani papers (if there are any left). I know it's unfashionable to those of a liberal bent to do so; but you might want to take a look at the front page of the Jerusalem Post on any given day. You will have no trouble finding proof of the intentions and actions of this trash. ... It is called DUE PROCESS. ..."Due Process" was conceived for responsible citizens, not murdering thugs who make their own law. The term "Due Process" has been hijacked by the socialists (read that most Democrats) in this country as a way to justify seditious acts against this country in time of war (and we are at war) while all the time appearing to the foolish to be standing up for "liberty, justice, and the American Way". Noting could be farther from the truth; it is simply a cynical ploy to damage this country for political gain. By the way, Shiria law DOES NOT reognize the rights of the individual.

All people on the planet have inalienable and self evident rights. And stating that TRUTH does not make me a "liberal" or "dove" or "soft on terrorism". It makes me someone who understands why this nation was founded and what the constitution says is the law.

Our laws are what separate us from our enemies...Our character separates us from our enemies; not our laws. Don't make the mistake of worshipping the law. Its made by man; and men can and are hijacked by other men.

[Guest KevinM]

Our character separates us from our enemies; not our laws.

Our laws ARE our character. They are a direct reflection of our principles. We define our own enemies by their laws and their sense of justice.

Don't make the mistake of worshipping the law. Its made by man; and men can and are hijacked by other men.

You obviously aren't very familiar with Constitutionalism. What some call "civil rights" are actually more accurately called as "God given rights". The Constitution didn't give them to us, God did. I'm not worshiping the law, I am worshiping God BY following and acknowledging the law.

murdering thugs

There are indeed murdering thugs all over the globe. And they are being and should be dealt with. We have them in America. And you know what? They have rights. People that are ultimately convicted of child molestation had a self evident right to a trial. If you were accused of child molestation, wouldnt you think it we be important to have a trial? I sure would. That being said, what gives you a self evident right to deny that to someone else? Aren't you a Christian?

Edited June 13, 2009 by KevinM

[Punisher84]

You obviously aren't very familiar with Constitutionalism. What some call "civil rights" are actually more accurately called as "God given rights". The Constitution didn't give them to us, God did. I'm not worshiping the law, I am worshiping God BY following and acknowledging the law.

I actually believe in God, but what if someone doesn't. How are they granted God given rights? Can they wave them or are they stuck with rights granted to them by someone they don't believe in?

[Guest KevinM]

I actually believe in God, but what if someone doesn't. How are they granted God given rights?

What does someone else's opinion matter in light of something you know as truth?

I'm just kidding. Well, not really. But I just want to say for the record that if I knew of anyone on this forum's rights were being violated, I would raise hell in your defense...I'd even be willing to jump between chief Serpas and a channel 5 news camera. Believe it or not...

Edited June 13, 2009 by KevinM

[DaveTN]

They do indeed have rights, many of which are indeed in the Constitution. Do they have the right to come here and be citizens? No. Do they have the right to an American attorney? Of course not. But they have the right not to be tortured. And not to be occupied where the rights that are "self evident"ly guaranteed in our 4th and 5th amendment are violated wholesale.

Make up your mind; they have Constitutional rights or they don’t.

Everyone believes that they shouldn’t be tortured (Unless it’s another country torturing U.S. citizens and troops). But that doesn’t make it a right.

The 5th amendment does indeed make exceptions for the detention for prisoners of war. But that isn't a blank check for the military and federal government to do whatever they want to a person.

Certainly it is. The military should be handling the POW’s, who and where they are should be classified, and the press and the rest of the government shouldn’t have any involvement.

Also, I am assuming you agree that American citizens cannot be locked away without due process, correct?

No, if someone claims to be a citizen of the U.S. a hearing should be held on that issue. If it is determined they are; their rights as U.S. citizens kick in.

[Punisher84]

What doesn someone else's opinion matter in light of something you know as truth?

I'm just kidding. Well, not really. But I just want to say for the record that if I knew of anyone on this forum's rights were being violated, I would raise hell in your defense...I'd even be willing to jump between chief Serpas and a channel 5 news camera. Believe it or not...

LOL ok despite this heated debate that is a funny ass comment.

I agree with you as far as U.S citizens go. I just don't agree when it comes to foreign nationals and what I, and I believe most others, believe is the common terrorist we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This, however, is my perception based on my time in the military, conversations with my many friends who have served overseas, and my own personal and political views.

[RinTN]

Hey, he specifically said US citizens, and these clearly are not.

I never said I could name a us citizen called a terrorist and stripped of DUE PROCESS I said US residents. They too are entitled to DUE PROCESS. And I gave an example of the 16 year old that was deprived of due process. Wether you like it or not the PATRIOT ACT gives the Federal Government the ability to violate virtually every right we have under the constitution.

You were responding to someone else's statement which clearly was limited to US citizens. So, I was simply pointing out that the items you listed didn't really address his statement. It seems that the basic difference in opinions is that you think Constitutional rights apply to the whole of humanity, while most - at least here - believe they apply only to citizens, and possibly legal aliens.

Also, please note that this 16 year old does not appear to have been deprived of any rights at all - he was neither arrested nor held under the powers of the PATRIOT ACT. His *mother* claimed to the news that he was, but all reports at this point seem to show that there was no truth to her claims.

I guess that it seems to me that your argument is more about "God given rights" than "Constitutional rights". While the framers certainly drew on the former to enumerate the latter, it's also clear that they did not believe every human had the same protections under the Constitution.

[Guest Seminole]

I don't know about "running the show" but I believe his "conservatism" was/is largely political pandering...

And Bush was the biggest liberal president we've ever had until Obama came along...

Folks, we have got to stop thinking in terms of "liberal" and "conservative." These labels are meaningless because they usually hide the fact that politicians are more similar than they are different. As Robert Heinlein put it, "political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

The proper term for those who want people to be controlled" is neither "liberal" nor "conservative" but "statist" because their preferred method for controlling people is by increasing the power of the state (the government). Both the Obama and the Bush administrations are headed by and made up primarily of statists. Some prefer to increase the power of the state primarily in the realms of the economy, healthcare, etc. while others prefer to increase the power of the state in the realm of drugs, militrary power, and personal morality, but they all believe that the power of the state should be increased at the expense of personal liberty. They rant and rave over their superficial differences so you won't see that at their philosophical essence--liberty vs. control--they are the same. Don't fall for their con game.

[Guest KevinM]

it's also clear that they did not believe every human had the same protections under the Constitution.

Really? Can you post a source? There are supreme court decisions on this. Do you approve of the way our government treated Nazi POWs like they were honored guests?

Alabama Heritage ...from the Vault

[Guest KevinM]

Folks, we have got to stop thinking in terms of "liberal" and "conservative." These labels are meaningless because they usually hide the fact that politicians are more similar than they are different. As Robert Heinlein put it, "political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

The proper term for those who want people to be controlled" is neither "liberal" nor "conservative" but "statist" because their preferred method for controlling people is by increasing the power of the state (the government). Both the Obama and the Bush administrations are headed by and made up primarily of statists. Some prefer to increase the power of the state primarily in the realms of the economy, healthcare, etc. while others prefer to increase the power of the state in the realm of drugs, militrary power, and personal morality, but they all believe that the power of the state should be increased at the expense of personal liberty. They rant and rave over their superficial differences so you won't see that at their philosophical essence--liberty vs. control--they are the same. Don't fall for their con game.

I completely agree with this. I'm just employing their jargon. Statist is the most apt and appropriate term.

[Guest jth_3s]

You were responding to someone else's statement which clearly was limited to US citizens. So, I was simply pointing out that the items you listed didn't really address his statement. It seems that the basic difference in opinions is that you think Constitutional rights apply to the whole of humanity, while most - at least here - believe they apply only to citizens, and possibly legal aliens.

I dont believe all humanity is entitled to our rights under the Constitution(it would be great if they were). Anyone inside the USA is subject to our Law (The Constitution) and DUE PROCESS and THEY ARE NOT subject to Military Law. I am concerned about the Violations of peoples rights inside the USA. People inside the US have been denied DUE PROCESS and that is wrong. People fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have no rights under the Constitution but should be treated like human beings and not be subject to enhanced interogation techniques (Torture).

[Guest jth_3s]

Folks, we have got to stop thinking in terms of "liberal" and "conservative." These labels are meaningless because they usually hide the fact that politicians are more similar than they are different. As Robert Heinlein put it, "political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

The proper term for those who want people to be controlled" is neither "liberal" nor "conservative" but "statist" because their preferred method for controlling people is by increasing the power of the state (the government). Both the Obama and the Bush administrations are headed by and made up primarily of statists. Some prefer to increase the power of the state primarily in the realms of the economy, healthcare, etc. while others prefer to increase the power of the state in the realm of drugs, militrary power, and personal morality, but they all believe that the power of the state should be increased at the expense of personal liberty. They rant and rave over their superficial differences so you won't see that at their philosophical essence--liberty vs. control--they are the same. Don't fall for their con game.

+1 This is a smart man right here.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Apparently you guys have been reading Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levine.

[Guest Seminole]

Apparently you guys have been reading Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levine.

I haven't read it. Is it any good?

[Guest KevinM]

Apparently you guys have been reading Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levine.

Never heard of him...Googling now...

[Guest jth_3s]

Apparently you guys have been reading Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levine.

Haven't read it but it looks like its worth checking out.

[leroy]

Kevin:_____________

Here's a news flash you may want to get to work on. It looks like the rights of some harmless pesants have been apparently violated by none other than President Oboma. Please follow this link for details: Suspected US missile strike kills five in Pakistan | International | Jerusalem Post

Regards,

LEROY

[RinTN]

Really? ...

In the late 1700's, under the terms of the Constitution as written:

Did Women have the same rights as men?

Did blacks have the same protections at whites?

Where the poor viewed the same under the law as the wealthy land owner?

I'm sure you know that the answer to each of these is a resounding NO. I'm not saying that it was a good thing, but when the founding fathers said "all", it's pretty clear that they said it with a wink and a nod.

Do you approve of the way our government treated Nazi POWs like they were honored guests?

Alabama Heritage ...from the Vault

I don't know if I would say I "approve", but I wouldn't say I'm bothered by it either. Actually, I don't think I've given an opinion at all on how people should be treated. I've just pointed out why your examples didn't really match one particular statement, and why your opinions seemed to come from a basis that's not quite the same as most of the other people posting in this thread.

[RinTN]

... Anyone inside the USA is subject to our Law (The Constitution) and DUE PROCESS and THEY ARE NOT subject to Military Law. I am concerned about the Violations of peoples rights inside the USA. People inside the US have been denied DUE PROCESS and that is wrong.

In most situations, that sounds pretty reasonable to me - with the one caveat that I do believe there could be situations where someone in the US would be subject to military law. If a member of a foreign military took action against the US on our own soil and was captured, it would seem reasonable for them to be treated as a military concern as opposed to a civilian one.

People fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have no rights under the Constitution but should be treated like human beings and not be subject to enhanced interogation techniques (Torture).

This sounds pretty reasonable to me, though it seems that there is little agreement to exactly what constitutes "torture". You might disagree, but I have a hard time considering the stupid stuff like putting underwear on someone's head to be torture. It wasn't appropriate, but I don't think it was torture either.

[Guest KevinM]

You might disagree, but I have a hard time considering the stupid stuff like putting underwear on someone's head to be torture. It wasn't appropriate, but I don't think it was torture either.

Don't get me wrong...while I do think all that was very inappropriate and unbecoming, I don't think it is/was torture. But the Iraqis who were beaten to bloody pulp? That is torture. Sodomy with a light stick? Torture....and disgusting.

I believe there are some VERY dangerous people out there who need to be dealt with...but I don't believe that "by any means necessary" is an appropriate response.

[Guest KevinM]

In the late 1700's, under the terms of the Constitution as written:

Did Women have the same rights as men?

Did blacks have the same protections at whites?

Where the poor viewed the same under the law as the wealthy land owner?

Yes, that is unfortunately true. But we later amended it, thankfully.

[Guest KevinM]

your opinions seemed to come from a basis that's not quite the same as most of the other people posting in this thread.

That's fine. The American Revolution was started by less than 5% of the population.

In the beginning a patriot is a scarce man, hated and feared and scorned. But in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him, because then it costs nothing to be patriot.

-Mark Twain