I think, for those republicans who are obsessed with safety and security, they can easily retire to that nation and be guaranteed to never ever get attacked by muslim terrorists.

That nation. NORTH KOREA.

Bon Voyage, Republicans! Don’t forget to write.

One of the fundamental facets of the U.S. Judicial system is the right to a trial (a speedy one at that) and the fundamental premise that you are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.

We have no fisthand knowledge of the guilt or innocence of the detainees. They may all be quilty as charged OR some may not be guilty except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. WE DO NOT KNOW. And that is the rtroubling part of this. It seems the present way thing are set up is that the “detainees” are to be locked up for as long as judicially possible without trial.

Producing a trial in U.S. courts with evidence, sworn testimony and a jury of peers would most likely find a significant portion of detainees not quilty, or, charged with minor crimes in a plea bargain arrangement that would have them freed for time served. Military Tribunals may give the Administration more options to prosecute with less evidence, but the evidence presented and the allegations must be factual. The Military courts have thrown ot the first cases as there was no definition of an allegeded “unlawful” combatent. A minor point so some would say, but you cannot prosecuted someone under a definition of a crime that does not exist!!.

The end game for this, in my opinion, is to hold the detaineed as “alleged terrorists” for purposes of propaganda and to give the American Public a sense of “we are doing something” or “we have the terrorists in custody” and failing to acknowledge the fact that they are alleged and not convicted, innocent until they are proven guilty and essentialy tried and convicted by the the administration with the backhand help of the press and Congress who should be outraged over the fast and loose rules the U.S. is takeing with the judicial system and the Constitution.

A note to MAF54 and other idiots: There are hundreds of nations in the world you can choose if you do not like our Constitution or the principles of freedom. It’s been the law of the land since our founding. Frankly, I can get over warrantless wiretaps if we catch wrongdoers (though I’m not comfortable with it). But violating Habeus Corpus is akin to setting the Bill of Rights on fire and watching it burn. Anyone who would support this, be they congressman or random citizen is nothing but a traitor to the principles of this nation. I urge you to move to Europe where your form of totalitarianism is much more commonly accepted.

-Benjamin Franklin

MAF54 That means you

Yes, patriots distrust the government and are biased against it. Perhaps you haven’t read the multitude of writings on the subject of “limited government” of the founding fathers, or you’d understand the inherent distrust people do have, and should have, in government. Those who trust it are themselves untrustworthy as agents and defenders of corruption, deception, and power without limits.

Poor little scared bunny rabbit, MAF54. Run to your government for protection for all things dangerous. Give them your power so you can hide from the big bad world.

Guess what? Life is dangerous. Government’s job is not to give you a life guarantee. Our very survival is not at stake. Terrorism itself cannot change this country. What it can do is cause the scared little bunny rabbits like you to demand change “for our survival” that the government is only too eager to accept. More power to the government. Less power to the people. And then we have tyranny, and then terrorism has won.

You might also be interested…according to the Declaration of Independence (heard of it?), rights are not reserved for American citizens. “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain rights…”

Some of us hold these truths to be self-evident. We’re called patriots. (And we are VERY different from people who supports the Orwellian-named “Patriot Act”.)

Comment by m12 — June 22, 2007 @ 9:41 pm

Oh how familiar .. for liberty, freedom? Just a little God given inherent rights taken here and there from innocent people. It’s all for the common good.

thank you for reading.

Hillary Clinton is already asking me to surrender my salary.

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”"

1. How could we ever be denied our unalienable rights (like habeas corpus)?
2. Will this legislation pass?
3. Will the president veto it?
4. If it passes and is not vetoed, will it be enforced?
5. What the f%ck use is the Constitution if we lose habeas corpus and our unalienable rights aren’t protected?

Can we use the old Jake dodge?

Y’know, that “For the record” schtick?

IGNORE THE TROLLS – Debate good, Trolls suck