Freedom and Justice - for a few.

The court refused to endorse a central claim of the White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 2001: That the government has authority to seize and detain suspected terrorists or their protectors and indefinitely deny access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatants_16

Great goodness, I guess the U.S. will continue to provide justice for all, no matter what Baby Bush thinks he and his cohorts can pull under our noses. It's wonderful that the government sometimes works like it's supposed to, score one for America!

wow something good for the people of america. go court systems.:smokin:

Wow, :iagree:

I can't see that this is a victory for justice, I'm more surprised that the White House ever thought they could get away with it.America has a good and workable constitution,when the likes of Bush try to use it for toilet tissue they should be removed from office without hesitation.The rights of the individual must always be weighed against the needs of the state,but in my opinion,Bush has rolled back the line far too much for his own convenience.For all you gun lovers and NRA members out there.Bush is the kind of President that your constitutional right to bear arms was intended for.

rights means little in the eyes of a guy like bush. the reason we are happy is some one said no to him. a small victory but a victory none the less.

I can't see that this is a victory for justice
You should, the courts ruled in favour of justice, and not in favour of stupidity.

For all you gun lovers and NRA members out there. Bush is the kind of President that your constitutional right to bear arms was intended for.
What? Bush is a British soldier from the 1700s? :) No he's just a moron.

rights means little in the eyes of a guy like bush. the reason we are happy is some one said no to him. a small victory but a victory none the less.
What rights are currently being taken away from you? Can you see any of this stuff has personally affected you in any way?

What rights are currently being taken away from you? Can you see any of this stuff has personally affected you in any way?
Rights do not have to be taken away from me or you to know that it's wrong. Any one of us could be unwittingly in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up being detained as an enemy combatant, without any chance of justice or recourse.
What the Bush administration is doing in Guantanamo is a war crime. It is contrary to the Geneva Convention, which is a fundamental guideline for how prisioners should be treated.
If you do not think it's a war crime, look at previous regimes that have abused prisioners, with brutal endless interrogations without any thought to justice or human rights.
Just to name a few:
Soviet Union (that Joseph Stalin cut through 28 million of his own people.
Khamr Rouge of Cambodia ( millions of their own citizens)
Nazi Germany (Did those 6 million Jews deserve their fate?)
Sure, Guantanamo is holding hundreds of people, not millions, but the fundamental denial of human rights under the Geneva Convention is wrong. Regardless of whether its one person or 10 million, its still wrong.

What rights are currently being taken away from you? Can you see any of this stuff has personally affected you in any way?

Yes. Know the concept of precedent (http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1573&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C)? If it can be done to one person, then it can be done to ANYBODY, nice 'n legal. You can be LEGALLY grabbed off the streets and thrown in a cell somewhere, with no lawyer, no trial, they don't even have to say IF they have you, let alone where.
For any reason. Doesn't even matter if you've done anything. That's not America. That's the Soviet Union, and right on to the courts for striking that down in quick order.

If you're arrested, you get a fair trial, no matter who you are. That's one of the things that makes democracies different from Communism.

What rights are currently being taken away from you? Can you see any of this stuff has personally affected you in any way?

Until the couryts put the jumped up little twerp in his place,if Bush wanted to,he could have me,the Pope,anyone from afghanistan,or France, or China,or even John Kerry for that matter classified as an 'enemy combatant'.We could then be shipped off to Cuba and held there indefinitely without any further reference to the legal process.

That may be acceptable to you Pick,but its more Uncle Saddam than Uncle Sam to me.

Rights do not have to be taken away from me or you to know that it's wrong. Any one of us could be unwittingly in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up being detained as an enemy combatant, without any chance of justice or recourse.
What the Bush administration is doing in Guantanamo is a war crime. It is contrary to the Geneva Convention, which is a fundamental guideline for how prisioners should be treated.
If you do not think it's a war crime, look at previous regimes that have abused prisioners, with brutal endless interrogations without any thought to justice or human rights.
Just to name a few:
Soviet Union (that Joseph Stalin cut through 28 million of his own people.
Khamr Rouge of Cambodia ( millions of their own citizens)
Nazi Germany (Did those 6 million Jews deserve their fate?)
Sure, Guantanamo is holding hundreds of people, not millions, but the fundamental denial of human rights under the Geneva Convention is wrong. Regardless of whether its one person or 10 million, its still wrong.
If you're starting ot compare Bush to those men, you are out of your damn mind......... :screwy:

The courts doing what they think is right. Bush is having done what he things is right. The fact that people like to work in adjectives to take swipes at Bush (or whomever) has gone past childish. People like to deride and belittle things they don't like or don't understand. Its cute the first few dozen times but as long as the weak minded simpletons who don't have the cranial capacity to think beyond their next meal are voicing their opinions, the rest of us will continue to laugh :p













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

the fact is, several things that can be done under the patriot act are in direct violation of your constitutional rights. i would list them for you, but i would rather you pick up the book titled "silencing dissent" by nancy chang. give it a read. its short, and easy to comprehend. costs all of like 6 bucks. and it goes through the patriot act, article by article exposing every little bit of it that violates human as well as constitutional rights.

Yogs, your whole paragraph had only two on topic sentences. You dance around the subject like a professional politician. :) And even your two sentences don't give us an answer! (You're a real pro!) So, who do you think is right? The Court which voted in favour of Justice? Or Bush & Co.? It's a very simple question - what's more important: The American Way, or Violating People's Rights?

Yogs, your whole paragraph had only two on topic sentences. You dance around the subject like a professional politician. :) And even your two sentences don't give us an answer! (You're a real pro!) So, who do you think is right? The Court which voted in favour of Justice? Or Bush & Co.? It's a very simple question - what's more important: The American Way, or Violating People's Rights?

You've phrased the question like a lawyer so you get the answer you want. Getting the answer you want has nothing to do with the truth or whats right or wrong. So while I do my politicing, you do your lawyering and reality will sit someplace in between.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Don't make me get my dogs out and torture you to get the answers. :icon16:

I'm not going to be a lawyer here then, I'll just post some stuff:

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial....

The court refused to endorse a central claim of the White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 2001: That the government has authority to seize and detain suspected terrorists or their protectors and indefinitely deny access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused (suspected terrorists) shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.... (that is, they won't be detained without access to courts or lawyers).
What's there not to get?

Then don't make me whip out Star Trek references

The good of the many outway the needs of a few.

:grinno:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with your quote, but I'm hoping that you're not suggesting that violating the rights of those who have yet to be proven guilty of the crimes they are accused of is somehow good for anyone, let alone many.
Thank God the Judicial Branch of this government actually places some value upon the ideals that this country was founded on.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with your quote, but I'm hoping that you're not suggesting that violating the rights of those who have yet to be proven guilty of the crimes they are accused of is somehow good for anyone, let alone many.
Thank God the Judicial Branch of this government actually places some value upon the ideals that this country was founded on.

I have to agree. America is JUST NOT the sort of country in which you can be grabbed off the street and locked up forever, no trial, no lawyer. That, like I say, is like the Soviet Union.

And good of the many?! I still can't see how it benefits any of us to take our freedom away to protect, ah, our freedom.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with your quote, but I'm hoping that you're not suggesting that violating the rights of those who have yet to be proven guilty of the crimes they are accused of is somehow good for anyone, let alone many.
Thank God the Judicial Branch of this government actually places some value upon the ideals that this country was founded on.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I am however not going to answer loaded questions.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

what do you mean loaded? This is an issue of black & white, not shades of grey. Either you support the constitution and it's ammendments, or you don't. I like the constitution, so I'm happy with their decision to uphold it's rules. :)

I support the constitution as well.

But you can't honestly say that So, who do you think is right? The Court which voted in favour of Justice? Or Bush & Co.? It's a very simple question - what's more important: The American Way, or Violating People's Rights? Isn't a loaded question. Its only a step away from asking someone if they've stopped beating their wife.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

The first part perhaps, but the second part isn't IMHO, afterall it was the defending the constitution and the rights that it guarantees, against ignoring the constitution and violating the rights it guarantees. You're either for rights, or you're against them.
If I wanted to I could justify the former part of question, since the idea of not allowing the suspects the right to a fair trial came from the Executive branch (Bush & Co.) and the ruling that it was unconstitutional came from the Judicial branch. But it's really a trick question, because of course the courts are right! :)

because of course the courts are right! :)

Except when they said that the recounts in Florida were not constitutional - right :p





Just playing. I know that'll get the goat of a few "court appointed" evangelists around here. :lol:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)