The Next Step: Stripping Criminals' Rights

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

…They are suspects, which is a big difference, much in the same way that not every goat herder that is in Guantanamo is a “terrorist”.

[/quote]Please name the goat herders in Guantanamo who are not terrorists. Tell us the circumstances as to how and why they were placed in Gitmo and then tell us how you are privy to this information. Now if you can do all this then tell us how you know your information is accurate.

[/quote]

Ah, they are guilty until proven innocent.

[/quote]
Just like in Chafee back in '43 there was no “proving” going on. At all.

I don’t believe ye grandpappy and his buds were giving out any of them there highly sought after trials to Allied prisoners either. Right, Hans?

You gotta git yer head in the game, boy. This aint cops and robbers.[/quote]

Back in 43 there was a war.

There isnt one now. There are illegal occupations, but no wars, therefore no “war time presidents” or “war time powers”.

Also, German soildiers were identifiable, whereas al Quaeda operatives are not.

I really do think that the burden of proof lies with you if you detain people indefinitely.

44

There is precedent for stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship. The most recent case I remember was John Demjanjuk, a Nazi Concentration Camp Guard in WW2. He presented false information on his application and lied during his hearing. Other naturalized citizens have also been stripped of citizenship and this is not something that is new.

It sounds like this guy applied for citizenship and used it as a cover for his terrorist activities. If that’s the case then he is no better then any one else and should be stripped, per precedent. Whether you are a Nazi or a Muslim, neither affiliation should shield you from the law.

45

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I specifically used 1943 for a reason. There was no finite ending point then.[/quote]

No, but this was not low-level war against a cultural mindset- it was a hot war against a conventional enemy, and it could be assumed that it would end. Even if it didn’t, it was clear who the enemy combatants were.

Your boring dialogue aside, we don’t know who’s a combatant and who’s not. When you caught a German in a uniform laying down his mauser, you knew what side he was on.

When we swept through Afghanistan, we picked up whomever looked like a terrorist. Which could be…the whole population?

So I’ll say again, the natures of the wars are different, thus the nature of the prisoner is different.

47

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

That was a different situation and you know it. I’m sure I don’t have to explain the difference between captured POW’s in a war that had a finite ending point [/quote]

I specifically used 1943 for a reason. There was no finite ending point then.[quote]

and a war against a fundamentalist cult that could go on for generations.[/quote]

Thanks for that. You just came up with an excellent reason to lock them up. We don’t need a mill that returns combatants, i.e., soldiers back to the front in “a war against a fundamentalist cult that could go on for generations.” How stupid would that be?

Gitmo guard: “Abdul, hey man, good to have you back. How was Yemen?”

Abdul: “Hot, dude. Too fuckin hot. No Caribbean breeze. But I did get to nail 14 more coalition soldiers with an IED up in Stan.”

GG: “No kidding? Well, shit, where are you going to reenlist next time? I hear Paki is paying better than Yemen. Promisin’ 82 virgins.”

Abdul: “Yeah, but it’s a ripoff, man. Only three of ‘em are worth doin’. They don’t tell you that in the brochure though.”

GG: “Ha! That’s what you get, fucker! I remember the 6th time you were in here. You let me know you had never even been laid. No wonder they were able to sucker you in on that 7th reenlist.”

Abdul: Maybe you’re right. I know one thing, I sure enjoy the R and R here on the beach. A guy needs a few months off every now and then from the drudgery of jihad."

CG: “No doubt, man. No doubt. Well, shit we’ll be seeing you again in oh, what say…'19?”

Abdul: “I dunno, dude. I’m gettin’ old doin’ this shit. I expect to be back in '17 or '18 next time.”

CG: “I’ll still be here. Won’t retire til '22. Hey, let’s break out the checkers board…”[quote]

The natures of the wars were different, thus the nature of the prisoner is different.

[/quote]

Big fuckin deal. What a lameass, Karachi tranny whore suckin, sorry excuse for a post. I don’t give a flyin fuck about the “nature of the prisoner.” He wants to kill me and my kin? Lock the sumbitch up and let the whiny bitches like you cry all over your makeup mirrors while you struggle to apply your mascara with your trembling little delicate hands before you set off for another work day at yer noble, ass lickin’ journalism job.
[/quote]

Hey, my girlfriend is a journalist.

49

Damn conservatives…

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration would take “a hard look” at the measure, the New York Times reported. “United States citizenship is a privilege,” she told the Times. “It is not a right. People who are serving foreign powers â?? or in this case, foreign terrorists â?? are clearly in violation, in my personal opinion, of that oath which they swore when they became citizens.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1965

Damn Liberals…

But the measure has hit some resistance in Congress as well as the White House. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, has expressed concern that the move would be unconstitutional â?? putting him in the very unusual position of agreeing with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also opposes the bill.

50

push honestly bro have you ever had conversation with a Muslim? You’re talkin’ like you know a whole lotta shit, i just question what kind of perspectives you have. Try writing a post as accurately as you can arguing the converse of what you’re arguing now i.e how some Gitmo detainees may be innocent. Then compare your posts and THEN make a stance worthy of long, lethargic and sarcastic ‘comebacks’ to the contrary.

No doubt theres some bad mofos in there but theres the chance that theres innocent ones too. To bad that it actually might be dangerous now to let them out free with all that new found hatred towards the west from being locked up like that. “You locked me up for nothing? Shit, imma fuck you up now…”

51

I’m relieved that everybody seems to think joe Lieberman is an idiot. I’m troubled by the fact that any senator would say that stuff.

Legal procedures, rights, technicalities – it’s little stuff, but the little stuff is all we have. A bunch of dry little rules are all that differentiate us from a dictatorship.

And the whole point of a right is that it’s extended to people you and I and the whole public would like to punish as badly as we can – those are precisely the situations where we have to be forced by the law to show restraint. Something has to stay our hand.

When you find yourself wanting to do something by any means necessary – that’s when you should stop and be grateful that the law does not permit every means. (I try to remember this for myself as well.)

55

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I’m the far-rightest (is that a word?) of the right wingers and I can categorically without hesitation state that there is not a single true conservative that would ever, in a million years, agree with stripping any citizen of his citizenship based on an act of terrorism.

As much as I would personally love to get my hands on this American SOB (and any like him), we are a nation of laws and must abide by them in the best of times and the worst of times.

The difference between him and a foreign combatant is plain and easy to see. Thus the legal distinction exists for a purpose. To paraphrase Voltaire, as much as I may hate his actions, I will defend his rights as a citizen.[/quote]

Agreed. I do not support revocation of citizenship.

If one were convicted of a treasonous act, then I suppose I could get behind the idea of revoking citizenship. But it would take a conviction under civilian/citizenship BoR and jury to do it. and in that case I have to ask, isn’t treason a capital crime anyways?

You’re going to be dead either way, so if conviction is the criteria for revoking ciitzenship, what does it achieve? Answer, nothing. And the proposal is just as stupid as it is in this case.

Any other criteria is not sufficient in my mind. This includes domestic terrorism ala Oklahoma City.

Bottom line, this is a TERRIBLE idea.

56

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

No doubt theres some bad mofos in there but theres the chance that theres innocent ones too…[/quote]

There were some “innocent” Germans in Camp Chafee in '43 for sure. They were forcibly drafted by the Nazis and some never even fired a shot or participated in a hostile maneuver against the Allies. They were simple, peace loving cooks and such who just wanted to continue being Hamburg shopkeepers.

Instead they found themselves incarcerated in the oppressive Arkansas heat and humidity in a POW camp for the duration of the war WITH NO TRIAL POSSIBLE.

See, here’s the deal NotGettnitdone, you have to have perspective. For instance, do you recall whether or not some of the innocent Japanese soldiers received trials at the Featherston prisoner of war camp in New Zealand? Did you know many of them would fit the description of the Germans I mentioned above? Did your country give them trials? Why not?

And since they did not receive these much coveted trials in NZ why would you now be casting stones at America for doing the precise same thing? Why does the splinter in other’s eyes preclude the removal of the beam from thine own?[/quote]

Just because MISTAKES happened in the past (and I think you acknowledge they are mistakes) why do they have to happen again right now?

And I’m not throwing stones at anyone, I like America but it seems you’re called out every time you disagree with their actions. I mean you don’t even like what your own govt. is doing, are you throwing stones at America?

58

in order to leave you alone you’d somehow have to revert away from being the richest, most influential nation on the planet that has some sort of impact basically everywhere on this planet…

60

Yeah duh I wanna go over to Cali for my graduate year. LA sun+LA women+LA beaches+basketball= one hell of a semester.