It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jailed for Protesting Gitmo: 34 Convicted for Demonstrations Outside Supreme Court

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:09 AM

Originally posted by AnOldFriend
People seem to like to through around this junk about you can only practice your rights if they don't infringe on another's rights. If somebody comes up to you and says "you cant practice your rights because my rights (or another's rights) are being infringed upon," wouldn't they be infringing upon your rights?

How do we decide who's rights are more important? Well apparently its whoever is in the pursuit of happiness.

Well, I think the adage "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" makes a lot of sense. But, from a philosophical point of view, my opinion, in cases where both the plaintiff's and defendant's rights are potentially being infringed, is that determination should rest with a jury, not a judge. My basis for that is this: the Judicial branch is established by the Constitution, the same document that recognizes the protected rights of the People. When there is a conflict between those rights, at the Constitutional level, should an entity (the court) established at that same level have a higher right of authority? I think that's what a jury is for, the People themselves being a higher right than the Constitution (as it is established by their consent). But, of course, I'm no legal-eagle, and I doubt the court would completely agree with my reasoning!

Speaking of juries, in the case mentioned here, the Washington Post article says:

Because the charges were misdemeanors punishable by less than six months in jail, the case was heard by a judge instead of a jury.

but the 6th Amendment says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...

I guess there's some fine legal hair-splitting making this not a 'criminal' trial. That doesn't seem right to me, especially since the judge deciding the case (which determines whether these individuals acted illegally in how they objected to the President's policies) was appointed by the President's father:

President George H.W. Bush appointed Judge Wendell P. Gardner, Jr. to the bench of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1991.

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:53 PM
I agree with you McLean, however i seen the video that was posted here of this protest. My question to those that say these people were infringing upon others rights, how exactly were they doing so? And Also why aren't the people who are being infringed upon not also on trial for infringing upon the people in this video rights?

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by AnOldFriend
My question to those that say these people were infringing upon others rights, how exactly were they doing so?

Yes I'd like to hear more explanation of that, too. Discussion here seems to have fallen silent very quickly.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
See how easy the disinfo agents have it?

INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE BEING TORTURED, and they steer the conversation to 9/11, illegal/legal protests, etc. Anything to get the focus off the fact that people are being detained, without trial, and are being tortured. WE KNOW FOR A FACT AT LEAST ONE INNOCENT MAN WAS TORTURED AND KEPT IN PRISON FOR 5 YEARS WITHOUT A TRIAL.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 04:18 PM
This thread in a lot of ways has went the same why every thread like this does. Someone points out a violation of rights, someone doesn't see a problem, someone says what are you going to do about it.

For anyone who has not realized a problem, allow me to explain. Secret Prison Systems where torture takes place is illegal. A "Free Speech Zone" is unconstitutional. Limiting your right to speak freely is unconstitutional. Spying on your own citizens without a warrant showing probable cause to do so is illegal and unconstitutional. Taking a country into an unjust war and lying to the people, the UN, Congress and the rest of the world to do so, resulting in the death of hundreds and thousands of people is illegal. The suspension of Habus Corpus and Posse Comitatus are both illegal. I could probably go on forever, but you have enough to get yourself started and if you really want to know, the truth is out there and VERY easy to get using Google and your questions and your mind.

So what are we going to do about it? The question always get asked, and someone always says, "Sitting behind a keyboard and complaining on a message board doesn't do any good" and they are right. They is always someone who says, "I spend time trying to wake people up!" and maybe you do. If you do, good for you. I love hearing that, but we are beyond the point of taking it one person at a time. We have seen people in forums who claim that they are simply waiting for the first shot in the war to be fired. God Bless you if thats you. One day you will be called upon. I have been watching these threads, doing research, worried, sleepless, and concerned after learning new things. Sometimes I just want to see the first shot, lets get this started and get it over with already. I'll take a gaping wound over slowly bleeding out any day. I have come to realize that there are two certainties. #1. Sooner or later everyone must pick a side.
#2. Only you will decide when it is time to make a stand.
I've decided when to make my stand... have you?

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:12 PM
Anybody wanna have a shot at answering my questions?

I would honestly like to know, somebody please enlighten me.

new topics

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in