Posted on 06/15/2008 12:16:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
And actually they don’t have to be members of al qaeda. They simply have to be taking up arms against the US.
This strawman of his falls miles short too.
Typical for lefties.
I do. All the time. We are what percentage of the world's population? We have what percent of its wealth? We control what percent of its land mass?
Do we run the whole place or do we need to accord ourselves in a manner that convinces others that we are sober, rational and just in order to win the cooperation of others, if not there esteem?
Even Bush finally stated his regrets for talking and acting like a cowboy. Reckless behavior has enormous consequences for our diplomatic standing in the world. Most of the world does not harbor terrorists, and we need to get along with most of them.
Screaming about shooting and locking up and throwing away keys on the grounds that we have accused folks of being islamofascists and without a fair trial of any sort scares lots of people. It does lots of damage.
Bush apologised for it.
And without a habeas proceeding where do you get to force someone to demonstrate that you have taken up arms agaisnt the US?
Where did I violate my oath under the constitution?
You are so far out in loony lefty land that there is no hope for you.
You know the saying about arguing with a fool. The only thing to do is stop before you both look the same.
No they are not at all. They are the same thing. We moved detainees to Guantanamo on the grounds that no one had sovereignty and so the military command could do anything they wanted. Once Guantanamo is closed the detainees have to be moved somewhere, and anywhere else in the world there is no question about sovereignty or jurisdiction. If it is not on US soil, even a US territory there is clear legal jurisdiction. If it is anywhere else, someone else is sovereign and their laws prevail.
The constitution I took an oath to defend does not have executive holidays in it.
Since I have reduced you to name calling, I guess you have nothing substantive to say.
Your problem is that you don’t know what a habeas proceeding is.
Let me take a wild guess.
If they are shooting at our troops then they are taking up arms agains the US.
I’m quite sure those being shot at will know they are being shot at.
But for you looney lefties you would want evidence that they were actually shooting at the troops who were being shot at.
This is where the evidence part comes in and the whole rights thing you like stops the battle to preserve evidence so you sitting in your chair can be satisfied that the rights of the terrorists are not being violated.
It’s more of your insane left wing craziness.
Actually calling you a looney lefty sums you up quite succintly.
Once again you guess wrong.
Your problem is that you don’t know what a war is.
Do you know what would actually happen at a habeas proceeding? What is at stake? What must the US prove through evidence / sworn testimony?
It is not a high standard. Criminals get remanded all the time.
Wow.
Wrong again.
Sorry but I don’t want to look like a fool so your circle jerking is your own doing.
If you know what a habeas proceeding is, then why are you so opposed to the US having to prove that it has valid reason for holding detainees? What is so hard about it that you think normal constitutional protections should be suspended?
About what?
You see. There you go again
Enemy combatants don’t get constitutional rights.
Well let me see.
Wrong about what you said.
Sorry I’m not interested in your time wasting lefty craziness.
Well the US government put the full weight of the US government behind proving that the Haditha marines were guilty. In fact they tried to get them all to plead so they would have to prove it. Guess what? So far they are innocent. Why would the US military say they are guilty if they are innocent? Don't they have constitutional oaths? Surely the prosecutors and convening officers didn't violate their oaths under the constitution? Or the civilian officials placed over them. They didn't beak their oaths did they? So the Haditha marines must be guilty. Except some officers said they weren't. Under oath, on a Court Martial panel. Someone broke his oath. Who?
That is why we have an f'in constitution.
Or I am a leftist and the Haditha marines were not improperly prosecuted. Or maybe, since they demanded to exercise their rights under the constitution they are leftists to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.