1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Be afraid!!!

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Tango3, Jun 16, 2008.

  1. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    newty says allowing the supreme court to rule on guantanamo prisoner could result in a nuclear strike in a us city
    catch Neocon bill kristolls reference to "supreme court No "supreme leader" yes...

    Obviously, Gingrich and the neocons dislike the idea of the Supreme Court ruling on judicial matters. Only the “Supreme Leader” — as another neocon, Bill Kristol, deemed Bush — should be allowed to make such decisions.
    According to Gingrich, Obama was wrong to support the Supreme Court’s decision to grant habeus corpus rights of Guantanamo prisoners. It was, Newt determined, a decision he called “worse than Dred Scott.” Gingrich said Obama “applauded this court decision. This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city.
  2. troubleticket

    troubleticket Monkey+++

    Foreign combatants have never had constitutional rights until now.

    What next? Illegals have constitutional rights?

    When it means anything, it means nothing.
  3. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Justbecausethey can bringtheircase up doesn'tmeanthey'llbe realeased..Whatif( just for sake of argument)

    You are rounded up purely bymistake and sent to a "secret prison"how are you going to prove you are a us citizen if you are cast into a hole somewhere with no access."Due process protects the completely innocent citizen, as does the 5 th amendment..
    The point of the article is the over the top "fearmongering":
    "Letting due process work will result in a nuclear detonation in a major city..." give me a break
  4. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    It just may....if TPTB dont like it they may decide to make a city glow in a false flag op in order to make sure the sheeple beg them to take away more rights and get rid of (or neuter) the SCOTUS so they can 'protect' us. I would find it more likely than the folks in Gitmo and their buddies mannageing it simply because the gov has to at least come up with SOME crime they commited or some provable reason why they are being held and if they can offer NOTHING that the person did then let them go.

    Allowing due process dose NOT mean you toss the doors open and let them all out. If they put an IUD along the road then show that they say so and Habeus Corpus is satisfied. Prove it and trial is satisfied. Execute them or seal them into the darkest hole in the prison untill they rot and justice has begun to be served. If they simply looked a bit like someone else, had the same name as a suspect, spoke out against a policy or some such then Habeus Corpus could NOT be satisfied since they had not commited a crime and THEN yeah they get to walk and again justice begins to be served. They didnt place or build the IED but they stood look out for the guy that did or helped in some other way, then he commited conspiracy to kill our troops and Habeus Corpus can be satisfied and he stays there.

    There's no reason not to have due process for any and all of them who are US citizens (and yes there have been a couple US citizens released but no one knows how many are held since who is held is classified) deffinatly need to still have their constitutional rights. Guess what, everyone else has them too even if they arent citizens. The Constitution did NOT grant us or create the rights, the rights are endowed by our creator and the constitution simply limits the power of the government and reminds them we already have those rights and they have NO authority to interfear with them.

    If we are endowed by our creator with inalianable rights, and the government is limited in its powers by its creators then how can we decide that lack of being a citizen of the US gives our gov the ability to not recognize their rights? Is there more than one 'creator' and the Constitution only refers to the one with an AO inside our boarders? Did his AO grow past the colonies that were party to the constitution?

    In order for it to be OK to ignore rights due to lack of citizenship you would have to accept that the rights inumerated by our constitution were granted by the gov to the people rather than as stated in the documents by those men that we are endowed with rights by our creator and the people granted the gov some basic ability to do a few things and the constitution limits that power.

    Cant realy accept that, even in the cases where I would like to since where the rights come for dont change.
  5. Pauly Walnuts

    Pauly Walnuts Monkey++

    I do not believe that a US city will be nuked because of this but disagree with combatants be given the same constitutional rights as you and I. Would their country allow us these rights upon capture??? Why must we make rules that hurt our mission?
  6. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Hey monkeyman
    quote Monkeyman:" If they put an IUD along the road then show that they say so and Habeus Corpus is satisfied. Prove it and trial is satisfied. Execute t...."

    IUD????:Intra-uterine device?????Me thinks you mean "IED:" Improvised explosive device". One blows your head off/the other goes up her wazzooo( i.e.prevents pregnancy)"
    Thanks for the chuckle!![boozingbuddies]
    er... the evil deadly IUD:[​IMG]

  7. Pauly Walnuts

    Pauly Walnuts Monkey++

    LOL @ Tango.
  8. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    lol yup thought I had fixed the typo there...oops

    Pauly, the first and foremost problem with it is the fact it also is applied to us by our own gov. So in short we are doing to our own just as they would do to us and it is VER hard to justify doing it even to them under our constitution which creates our government. If we throw out our identity and play by their rules then why bother to fight at all? Im sure they would be happy to welcome us as soon as we all accept Islam and their ways of doing things.

    Dont get me wrong here, I figure if its a nation assisting those who kill our people then wipe them off the map, if they are hideing in a country that will help clean out their criminals then wipe out the terrorists that are trying to kill our people. If you capture them though then say who and why and if its being applied to our own people then its hard to claim its a war thing rather than a political thing. War has some different rules than within our country.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary