"Something". You dont even know what that "something" is. And it seems neither does the US Government.
Have they closed Gitmo yet?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Sure ....they were in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people!
Baron Max
They dont even know that. A lot of them were delivered to them by the Northern Alliance.
How so? Are you high?
Baron Max:
Owning a gun is not what I would call a fundamental right. There is a general international consensus on fundamental rights (e.g. see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and gun ownership is not listed as one of them.
Probably. Hmm...
Thankfully, the entire history of the US legal system is against you on this point. In principle, it prefers to err on the side of letting the guilty go free occasionally, rather than locking up the innocent.
I'm so glad that better minds than yours invented the system you live under.
Owning a gun is not what I would call a fundamental right. There is a general international consensus on fundamental rights (e.g. see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and gun ownership is not listed as one of them.
Probably. Hmm...
Thankfully, the entire history of the US legal system is against you on this point. In principle, it prefers to err on the side of letting the guilty go free occasionally, rather than locking up the innocent.
I'm so glad that better minds than yours invented the system you live under.
I would consider self defense a fundamental right, and that includes the right to own and use a gun.
Regarding your "Univeral Declaration of Human Rights", screw that. Humans rights were handed down from God, not some UN commitee. Or, if you don't like God, Human rights are intrinsic to the nature of man.
You're talking about criminals, not unlawful combatents. The only case regarding people in this class to go before the Supreme Court ruled the military could do what they wanted with them. This was in WW2 and the Germans dropped off some guys to sabatoge and create havoc. They were executed by the military. Despite the fact that one of them was a US citizen.
And regarding closing Gitmo, it will result in three things. One, more secret prisons to question/hold valuble enemy combatents. Two, more shipping off of these scumbags to other countries where they will endure much worse than the "torture" they endure in US custody (rendition). And three, more summary execution of terrorists.
Enemy combatents have no business whatsoever in US civil or criminal courts. They are not equipped to deal with them. Rules such as discovery would destroy all of our sources of info. And adjusting the courts so they could deal with these cases would pervert the law and result in a real loss of civil rights.
Terrorists are not criminals. They can not be handled by the same courts. They need to be dealt with by military tribunals or simply killed.
how come unlawful combatants only entered the picture under this current regime.
Were they recently created by God?
Or did your government need the term to install fascist elements?
Were they recently created by God?
Or did your government need the term to install fascist elements?
Bush did not invent this term. As I mentioned in the above post, the suprreme court ruled in WW2 there is no right to habius corpus for unlawful combatents:
yeah, but back then they still had rights if you had bothered to read your own quote.
madanthonywayne:
Self-defense isn't listed anywhere by anyone as a fundamental human right.
All expressions of fundamental human rights have been written down by men, not gods.
If you read your bible, you'll see that your God isn't too great on the subject of human rights. I wouldn't go looking for rights in your bible.
Sadly, they are not. Human rights are an attempt to protect people in general from the baser motives that people are prone to succumb to from time to time.
The term "unlawful combatent" is just a case of weasel words.
Interesting that you do not trust your government to uphold basic freedoms and rights. That says a lot. What it hints to me is how low the US has sunk in terms of providing some kind of moral role model in recent years.
No? What are they, then?
I'm not surprised you support the death penalty as well.
Self-defense isn't listed anywhere by anyone as a fundamental human right.
All expressions of fundamental human rights have been written down by men, not gods.
If you read your bible, you'll see that your God isn't too great on the subject of human rights. I wouldn't go looking for rights in your bible.
Sadly, they are not. Human rights are an attempt to protect people in general from the baser motives that people are prone to succumb to from time to time.
The term "unlawful combatent" is just a case of weasel words.
Interesting that you do not trust your government to uphold basic freedoms and rights. That says a lot. What it hints to me is how low the US has sunk in terms of providing some kind of moral role model in recent years.
No? What are they, then?
I'm not surprised you support the death penalty as well.
Sure, the right to trial by military tribunals. They still have that.
no, they don't. Didn't you follow the news.
Really? In the US we hold the most fundamental of rights to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness (Locke had that last one as property). The right to life, if it means anything, includes the right to defend it.
NO RIGHT MEANS ANYTHING WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS.
Most state constitutions in the US include the right to bear arms for self defense. For instance, the Indiana Constitution says:
"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
The idea that there is no right to self defense is a bizarre concept I would never have considered anyone seriously making. I am flabergasted that you could seriously believe there are any rights without the right to self defense!
Some places appear to be climbing down the ladder.