Jump to content


Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial


Recommended Posts

Carl on the left, JJ on the right. I would think that even as disparate as your personal views (and opinions of the C in C) are you might come together on the notion that a law empowering the administation to detain US citizens indefinately without trial is bad. Then again, I have been accused of missing the trees for the forrest on occassion.

 

BTW, sorry guys my white, middle class, christian a$$ isn't counting on the staintly boys at the ALCU to protect me. I think I might just cling to my guns and religion like a good like hick.

Link to comment

Carl on the left, JJ on the right. I would think that even as disparate as your personal views (and opinions of the C in C) are you might come together on the notion that a law empowering the administation to detain US citizens indefinately without trial is bad. Then again, I have been accused of missing the trees for the forrest on occassion.

 

BTW, sorry guys my white, middle class, christian a$$ isn't counting on the staintly boys at the ALCU to protect me. I think I might just cling to my guns and religion like a good like hick.

It certainly isn't good.

Link to comment

Carl on the left, JJ on the right. I would think that even as disparate as your personal views (and opinions of the C in C) are you might come together on the notion that a law empowering the administation to detain US citizens indefinately without trial is bad. Then again, I have been accused of missing the trees for the forrest on occassion.

 

BTW, sorry guys my white, middle class, christian a$$ isn't counting on the staintly boys at the ALCU to protect me. I think I might just cling to my guns and religion like a good like hick.

I don't believe it is my position that detaining US citizens indefinately without trial is a good thing. I have only tried to make 2 points (and apparently failed at doing so). 1- Yes, that law makes me nervous but, until I see or hear about actual innocent US citizens being detained, I will give up a little of my theoretical liberty in exchange for a real tool to help stop terrorism. The key word is UNTIL. 2- I have tried to point out that there really is no difference, as regards our liberty and freedom, between that law or another law which requires private citizens to purchase any specific good or service such as health insurance or to be forced to participate in a plan like Soc Sec. If there is a difference, it is that the PA law does not infringe on anyones liberty until it is actually abused but, in the case of Obamacare or Soc Sec, it does and will affect every single person. I won't argue that having health insurance isn't a good thing (I have it and wouldn't think of going without it) but where is our government empowered to make that decision for me?

 

I'm with you huskertim, I'm not going to depend on the ACLU for squat. Last I checked they were too busy defending cop killers and child pornographers to be bothered with the issues of upstanding legal citizens like myself. Any group that can read what is actually written about religion and government and come to the conclusion that it was intended to prevent public displays of or possible exposure to someone elses religion rather than preventing government from interfering with your religion, well, I'm not going to depend on them for anything.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

I started this thread asking 'Where is the ACLU?'. I might be a righty, but I'm fair.

 

I have to give to the ACLU for atleast looking into the Anwar al-Awlaki case.

 

There is little question that Anwar al-Awlaki is a terrorist dirtbag that got what he deserved, but the whole situation initiates an interesting dilemma….If an individual(s) within the government deem an American citizen is a terrorist, do they not receive a trial? Can they lawfully be assasinated?

Link to comment

At first this made sense to me, but then I got to thinking how dangerous this could be. What happens if an American citizen is wrongly accused of terrorism? Are they to be locked up without a trial? Even worse, what happens if someone is set-up? Who decides who is a terrorist?

 

Just curious were the ACLU and those that hate the Patriot Act are hiding.

 

 

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

 

http://www.guardian....detention-obama

Oh, they will be around to fight this.

 

The people who hate the same ACLU that fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms make me chuckle.

 

 

They don't fight for my freedoms. I could see them go away and not sweat it one bit. And if they do fight this so what even a blind squirrel finds a nut. :nutz

Link to comment

It explicitly states that the requirement does not extend to US citizens, among other things.

 

I does give the president the right to apply it to US citizens, if he says that national security is at stake. It's still basically the exact same thing that has been in place for over 10 years now. And we still have a Constitution. The issue is being sensationalized and it's kind of ridiculous.

 

And do you think I was referring to you as a firebagger in another thread? I was referring to the author of the article you linked.

 

Even if you weren't, it seemed to fit.

 

I voted for Obama in the Dem primary and in the general election, only because the competition was that much worse.

 

I read his Audacity book, and it was clear how much of a wimp he was.

 

Once he started naming his cabinet I had given up on him, before he even took office.

 

And time has showed that my extremely low expectations of him were not met.

 

He does not deserve a second term... even if we have to go to someone else worse than him.

 

And time has showed that my extremely low expectations of him were not met.

 

He does not deserve a second term... even if we have to go to someone else worse than him.

 

So what exactly should he have done to make you happy? Keeping in mind that Congress controls most of what gets passed and not, and that the Republicans over the past 4 years have been completely uncooperative, and have no problem busting out the filibuster over basically everything.

 

 

You seem to forget that BO had two years with a filibuster proof congress and he got his way for two years. 2010 was the first year he was without a majority in the house. He is an inept POTUS and his policies (Obama care) are hurting business.

 

http://www.politifac...mises/obameter/

 

Also, regardless of your thoughts on Obama, saying we'd be better off with someone worse than him is just no. Have you been paying attention to the Republican candidates? Are you aware of their views on economics? I'm sorry, but no thanks to the economic black hole their ridiculous policies would put us in. Hold your nose if you have to while you're in the voting booth, because the alternative is f'ing terrible. Do you really think that "teaching him a lesson" or whatever is going to benefit anyone? I'm sorry you're upset with Obama, but let's be realistic here.

 

Yeah oBUMa's policies are so much better lets spend the country into a depression. It is only going to be about fifteen years or so when we will have problems paying THE INTEREST ON THE DEBT. Not we will have problems paying our bills but we will have problems with THE INTEREST!! We need to change policy and fast or we are going the way of Greece. eyeswear2allthatsholy

Link to comment

Oh, they will be around to fight this.

 

The people who hate the same ACLU that fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms make me chuckle.

 

 

They don't fight for my freedoms. I could see them go away and not sweat it one bit. And if they do fight this so what even a blind squirrel finds a nut. :nutz

They don't? I thought that you were a Christian? What are the tenets of this religion that you are inventing?

Link to comment

Oh, they will be around to fight this.

 

The people who hate the same ACLU that fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms make me chuckle.

 

 

They don't fight for my freedoms. I could see them go away and not sweat it one bit. And if they do fight this so what even a blind squirrel finds a nut. :nutz

They don't? I thought that you were a Christian? What are the tenets of this religion that you are inventing?

 

 

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

Link to comment

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

Spoken like someone who has never bothered to look at ACLU cases beyond what Fox/Beck/Limbaugh tell them.

 

Prove it up. Show me how they fight against religious freedom in every school in the country. I won't have any trouble showing otherwise. Let's see what you have.

Link to comment

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

Spoken like someone who has never bothered to look at ACLU cases beyond what Fox/Beck/Limbaugh tell them.

 

Prove it up. Show me how they fight against religious freedom in every school in the country. I won't have any trouble showing otherwise. Let's see what you have.

 

 

Spoken like a true uber liberal who has never looked beyond the NYT or Huffington post. Then show otherwise, I am tired of you asking for links and when I give them you say nothing about them. Show me what you got!!! chuckleshuffle

Link to comment

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

Spoken like someone who has never bothered to look at ACLU cases beyond what Fox/Beck/Limbaugh tell them.

 

Prove it up. Show me how they fight against religious freedom in every school in the country. I won't have any trouble showing otherwise. Let's see what you have.

 

 

Spoken like a true uber liberal who has never looked beyond the NYT or Huffington post. Then show otherwise, I am tired of you asking for links and when I give them you say nothing about them. Show me what you got!!! chuckleshuffle

http://www.aclufight...christians.com/

 

Your turn.

 

(Where are the links that you claim that I demanded and am now ignoring? I'd hate to think that you can't back that up either.)

Link to comment

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

Spoken like someone who has never bothered to look at ACLU cases beyond what Fox/Beck/Limbaugh tell them.

 

Prove it up. Show me how they fight against religious freedom in every school in the country. I won't have any trouble showing otherwise. Let's see what you have.

 

 

Spoken like a true uber liberal who has never looked beyond the NYT or Huffington post. Then show otherwise, I am tired of you asking for links and when I give them you say nothing about them. Show me what you got!!! chuckleshuffle

http://www.aclufight...christians.com/

 

Your turn.

 

(Where are the links that you claim that I demanded and am now ignoring? I'd hate to think that you can't back that up either.)

 

https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=110923_sc_video

 

http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=6166

 

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/206561/

 

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-religion-belief/public-school-holds-christian-rally-convert-students

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/aclu-threatens-legal-action-nj-high-school-amendment-dispute/

Link to comment

http://www.aclufight...christians.com/

 

Your turn.

 

(Where are the links that you claim that I demanded and am now ignoring? I'd hate to think that you can't back that up either.)

 

https://secure.aclu....110923_sc_video

 

http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=6166

 

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/206561/

 

http://www.aclu.org/...onvert-students

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ndment-dispute/

Do you see the difference between your links and my links? Mine show that the ACLU defends the individual's religious rights. Your links show that the ACLU opposes the imposition of religious beliefs on others. BOTH of those types of cases defend the institution of Christianity.

 

Also, you're only 39 cases behind. Keep googling, my friend.

Link to comment

http://www.aclufight...christians.com/

 

Your turn.

 

(Where are the links that you claim that I demanded and am now ignoring? I'd hate to think that you can't back that up either.)

 

https://secure.aclu....110923_sc_video

 

http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=6166

 

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/206561/

 

http://www.aclu.org/...onvert-students

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ndment-dispute/

Do you see the difference between your links and my links? Mine show that the ACLU defends the individual's religious rights. Your links show that the ACLU opposes the imposition of religious beliefs on others. BOTH of those types of cases defend the institution of Christianity.

 

Also, you're only 39 cases behind. Keep googling, my friend.

 

 

Seriously how can you say that when they are fighting a 70 year old graduation tradition just because there is a religious symbol. If that were true I could just put one on here and you would be a born again Christian using that logic!! That is just crazy logic!! :bad

 

A New Jersey high school with a 70-year tradition of hosting graduation ceremonies in a historic auditorium is standing firm against legal threats from the American Civil Liberties Union, which claims the event violates the separation of church and state because of the Christian-owned site's religious displays

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/aclu-threatens-legal-action-nj-high-school-amendment-dispute/#ixzz1oN99Rqu0

Link to comment
It explicitly states that the requirement does not extend to US citizens, among other things.

 

I does give the president the right to apply it to US citizens, if he says that national security is at stake. It's still basically the exact same thing that has been in place for over 10 years now. And we still have a Constitution. The issue is being sensationalized and it's kind of ridiculous.

 

And do you think I was referring to you as a firebagger in another thread? I was referring to the author of the article you linked.

 

Even if you weren't, it seemed to fit.

 

I voted for Obama in the Dem primary and in the general election, only because the competition was that much worse.

 

I read his Audacity book, and it was clear how much of a wimp he was.

 

Once he started naming his cabinet I had given up on him, before he even took office.

 

And time has showed that my extremely low expectations of him were not met.

 

He does not deserve a second term... even if we have to go to someone else worse than him.

 

And time has showed that my extremely low expectations of him were not met.

 

He does not deserve a second term... even if we have to go to someone else worse than him.

 

So what exactly should he have done to make you happy? Keeping in mind that Congress controls most of what gets passed and not, and that the Republicans over the past 4 years have been completely uncooperative, and have no problem busting out the filibuster over basically everything.

 

http://www.politifac...mises/obameter/

 

Also, regardless of your thoughts on Obama, saying we'd be better off with someone worse than him is just no. Have you been paying attention to the Republican candidates? Are you aware of their views on economics? I'm sorry, but no thanks to the economic black hole their ridiculous policies would put us in. Hold your nose if you have to while you're in the voting booth, because the alternative is f'ing terrible. Do you really think that "teaching him a lesson" or whatever is going to benefit anyone? I'm sorry you're upset with Obama, but let's be realistic here.

 

You don't really know how a person is til he is President. Simply saying the lesser of evils is a cop out. His first two years he had a Democratically controlled both houses and nothing got through. I'd rather have someone who has balls to do something rather than do nothing.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...