It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Bush disagrees with Guantanamo ruling

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Anyone can be declared an "enemy combatant" bunky...therein lies the problem with your "terrorists hate us for our freedom" philosophy.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I disagree too.Bush you are a very clever president i must say!Republicans for the bloody win!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Clever in what way Justice? His ability to get people dead in an unending war? Hooyah...USA, USA, USA...
Or his ability to get his paws around the oil fields for his minions?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
NEVER in our nations history has the rights of U.S. citizens been given to terrorist caught on the battlefield.

Did you ever stop to consider exactly what rights are being upheld? No, you just naturally assumed "citizen" rights in a knee-jerk response. Did you stop to consider that, as human beings, they still deserve human rights? Even POW's have rights under the Geneva Convention & as much as Bush tries to deny it, the USA must still uphold legal Treaties that were enacted even before Bush came anywhere near any Government Office.

Bush's job as President is to enforce the Law & legal Treaty under Law, not create new Law (This is up to Congress), not interpret (This is up to the Judiciary), only enforce. In fact, Bush only enforces Laws when it seems to suit him or his corporate allies...Otherwise, he'd be helping secure our borders from the civilian invasion of illegal aliens that has been continually occurring for more than a decade already!

The Court ruled correctly because even Bush is legally bound to abide by US Treaties, whether they apply on US soil or not...If they're supposed to apply on US soil, then the terms of the Treaty must also be held under the Constitution, not over it.

Whether or not you or Bush or anyone else agrees to it or likes it, Bush is now legally committed to uphold Treaty under Law. Bush has already spent way too much time & effort in violating the Law, dismantling the Law & it's about time he started living up to his legally binding Oath of Office.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
No Bush is incorrect as are you, The Constitution lays the foundation for the rights of all men, not just Americans

No it does not!
Why is it called the U.S. Constitution and not the worldwide Constitution?

Are you trying to project our Constitution and rights worldwide? I thought people like you wanted us to stay out of the affairs of others. However, now you seem to want to give the entire world the priviliges and rights we have because of our Constitution. Your logic is so faulty it's scary.

These 5 radical judges ignored the Military Commissions Act which states:
GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF
RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva
Conventions as a source of rights.

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
has been determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Military Commissions Act

They also ignored their own previous ruling:
Johnson v. Eisentrager
The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.

Previous court ruling

So, the only this current court has proved is that the 5 radical judges are putting their own agenda ahead of law and the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
The problem is you are making an assumption of guilt before a trial. You apparently think everyone their was trying to kill US soldiers, but that not true:

Irrelevant!!
For starters, the majority were captured on the battlefield trying to kill soldiers.
Secondly, the very few who might have got caught up in the mix will get their day in court via a military trial. They still don't get the rights afforded to U.S. citizens.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
I think the constitution says that all humans have inalienable rights and all men are created equal. Im not sure if it says all men in the US are created equal.

Is it called the U.S. Constitution or the worldwide Constitution?

Secondly, do most of you here actually read past that line in the Declaration of Independence regarding unalienable rights?
I guess not because after that line it states:
"That to secure these rights , Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Now here comes the relevent part. It continues by saying:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Anyway, if you would actually read the entire Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it does not afford foreigners trying to kill us any rights!!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Anyone can be declared an "enemy combatant" bunky...therein lies the problem with your "terrorists hate us for our freedom" philosophy.

This is just NOT true.
Please show me where is says anyone can be declared an "enemy combatant".



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Did you stop to consider that, as human beings, they still deserve human rights? Even POW's have rights under the Geneva Convention & as much as Bush tries to deny it, the USA must still uphold legal Treaties that were enacted even before Bush came anywhere near any Government Office.

Sorry, but terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Conventions.
Perhaps you need to read it again and try to comprehend what you are actually reading instead of spewing liberal talking points as a 'knee-jerk' reaction.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Anyone can be declared an "enemy combatant" bunky...therein lies the problem with your "terrorists hate us for our freedom" philosophy.

This is just NOT true.
Please show me where is says anyone can be declared an "enemy combatant".


Just out of curiosity, would you support the fighters of Iraq or Afganistan taking American soldiers and keeping them detained? They would afterall be enemy combatants.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545
Just out of curiosity, would you support the fighters of Iraq or Afganistan taking American soldiers and keeping them detained? They would afterall be enemy combatants.

A) They are not fighters, they are terrorists.
B) They have in the past and then what do they do to them.........Does real torture come to mind and let's not forget the beheadings and their burning corpses hanging from bridges. The detainees in Gitmo have it good.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Rook1545
Just out of curiosity, would you support the fighters of Iraq or Afganistan taking American soldiers and keeping them detained? They would afterall be enemy combatants.

A) They are not fighters, they are terrorists.
B) They have in the past and then what do they do to them.........Does real torture come to mind and let's not forget the beheadings and their burning corpses hanging from bridges. The detainees in Gitmo have it good.


While they may be terrorists to you, they are freedom fighters to others. Just as the Americans were terrorists in the Revolutionary War.

It does not matter what they do to them. They are captured enemy fighters, and as you have pointed out, they are not local citizens so they do not have the privledge of being extended the rights of the local population.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545
While they may be terrorists to you

Correct, and thats all that matters.
They are not freedom fighters since they have no country of their own and the people who live in that country don't want the terrorists there to begin with.


It does not matter what they do to them.

Sure it does. Why wouldn't it?



They are captured enemy fighters, and as you have pointed out, they are not local citizens so they do not have the privledge of being extended the rights of the local population.

The terrorists are NOT part of the local population. They are coming in from other countries. The native people don't like or want the terrorists there to begin with. So how can the terrorists extend rights they don't have?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Man i can just see you back in the 60's beating blacks cause there "communists"..

"Thats all that matters"
No it isnt . Who the $^#$^ do you think you are? If i thought bush could use a computer . I would swear you were the "guy" himself.

No offense . But there just isn't a such thing as a "terrorist".. I know the word makes everything ok to you .. But the fact is . There just people ..
And frankly . I haven't seen ANY proof . That we need to detain anyone with no just cause.


But anyway.. Keep shouting off that soapbox . Someone bound to hear you ..

Screw human rights . Screw what separates us from the animal.

Your type makes me sick .. We seriously need to do away with warning labels so the gene pool can cleanse itself..



[edit on 13-6-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
American values according to Bush:

Freedom - Gitmo

Justice - Gitmo

The American way - Gitmo, Iraq, WMD's, Iran, WAR, Money.

Nuff said.

I have great respect for the US and it's citizens - but for shrub?

None at all.

He is beneath contempt, as are his little war gang.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
Man i can just see you back in the 60's beating blacks cause there "communists"..

Are you retarded?
How on Earth would come to that assumption?



Who the $^#$^ do you think you are?

Someone who believes in the Constitution. You should try it sometime.


No offense . But there just isn't a such thing as a "terrorist".. I know the word makes everything ok to you .. But the fact is . There just people ..

Then what do you call foreign people with no country trying to kill you?



Screw human rights . Screw what separates us from the animal.

What human rights are the detainees not getting?



Your type makes me sick .. We seriously need to do away with warning labels so the gene pool can cleanse itself..

You must have Bush derangement syndrome because you are making no sense. I guess I was correct because you are either retarded or you have your head in the sand.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


This is worthless because your irrational, but here goes.

Many of the detainees do have countries. For example the two men listed in the story I posted were Afghani (and were wrongfully detained according to our buddys the Afghan government) Many of these people are Iraqis. If you claim its because they don't fight for a country, then literally anyone in this country coulld be labeled an enemy combatant. The government would just say you were against them and not affiliated with a government.

Also, has it ever occurred to you that a crappy treatment of our enemies encourages more and more people to join them. This means the US soldiers which clearly you care about have to fight in more countries, and be delployed lonfer, and face more hostile enemies. Even the CIA has released reports saying this blowback exists.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by C0le
No Bush is incorrect as are you, The Constitution lays the foundation for the rights of all men, not just Americans

No it does not!
Why is it called the U.S. Constitution and not the worldwide Constitution?


Are you trying to project our Constitution and rights worldwide? I thought people like you wanted us to stay out of the affairs of others. However, now you seem to want to give the entire world the privileges and rights we have because of our Constitution. Your logic is so faulty it's scary.


It could have something to do with the fact that the Constitution was drafted for the original 13 colonies as a way of forming a new Government separate from Great Britain, And the fact that in my post it was clearly explained that logistically we can't force or protect these rights for every person on this planet, It's up to the peoples of other countries to take it upon themselves to set forth their own freedom and liberty much as our founding fathers did, With that said when events take place with our direct intervention and will, It is our duty to project our principles, Not reject them due to lesser laws such the technicalities of a treaty or your opinions on rather or not another man is entitled to the most basic rights of every human.

Certain rights within the Bill of Rights are to outsiders a privilege that require one to be a citizen to assert, However within these borders they are rights that cannot be taken away, Also some of those rights are unalienable and without borders that do not require one to be a citizen, They are our most basic rights not given to us as you suggest by a piece of paper, but that we are born with.

You will find no hypocrisy in my words, I understand through reading and history what the Constitution means to all men not just greedy self righteous Americans, But to both the richest and poorest, the kindest and the most evil, The rights of man do not protect the guilty, but rather they protect the innocent, If these men are found guilty of the crimes they committed, they will be held accountable for those crimes, to give them anything less then the right to know what crime they are accused of, and be able to have representation and either be released or sentenced is beyond disgusting, Any American that would suggest this is the American way knows little of history and even less of morality and justice.

It is our duty as American to project our freedom to all who will embrace it, even to our enemies, hypocrisy is injustice, as is the path your kind wishes to travel, because of your misguided patriotism and nationalism...



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 

I'm not sure maybe you're not getting this but
WE ATTACKED THEM
of course they are trying to kill us I'd do the same thing, Btw one of those most basic rights is the right to defend your own life...





[edit on 13-6-2008 by C0le]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 





Please tell me where in the Constitution that foreign enemies are afforded the rights of U.S. citizens.


"United States Constitution

Adopted September 17, 1787
Article VI Clause II

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Now read the Geneva Conventions and the ruling for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. These guys break laws our country was founded on. People like you justify everything they do and say we are "un-patriotic" for questioning them. Maybe you should read the constitution....just once.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join