PDA

View Full Version : Anyone notice that both campaigns...



Franco
11-10-2008, 04:28 PM
That both campaigns NEVER mentioned the illegal alien invasion of the USA and what they would do to fix it?

Notice too that this issue never came up in any of the debates?

This last Presidential campaign was a sham. Both candidates dodged the tough questions and never directly answered many of the questions. And, the really tough questions were never asked!

Get ready for some really tough times.

Marvin S
11-10-2008, 07:00 PM
They were both running against George Bush, whose own position they agree with & which is in direct conflict with what most US citizens think & want enforced.

It is a free press's obligation to ask those questions, but in this case they were only interested in watching history being made while they let their candidate off the hook.

M Remington
11-10-2008, 07:15 PM
That both campaigns NEVER mentioned the illegal alien invasion of the USA and what they would do to fix it?

Notice too that this issue never came up in any of the debates?

This last Presidential campaign was a sham. Both candidates dodged the tough questions and never directly answered many of the questions. And, the really tough questions were never asked!

Get ready for some really tough times.

"Invasion" is a pretty harsh term when referring to illegals crossing the borders. Are families with small children searching for a better life invading us? There are plenty of jobs to go around for everyone.

Marvin S
11-10-2008, 07:35 PM
"Invasion" is a pretty harsh term when referring to illegals crossing the borders.

Illegal is illegal irregardless of circumstance/


Are families with small children searching for a better life invading us?

When I was a young man we were warned of the responsibility of fatherhood & the consequences of irresponsible behavior. If you can't afford them, don't have them.


There are plenty of jobs to go around for everyone.

You might pass that around to the many who are hitting the bricks these days. I am sure they would agree with your rationale.

RedHeadedHurricane
11-10-2008, 07:44 PM
"Invasion" is a pretty harsh term when referring to illegals crossing the borders. Are families with small children searching for a better life invading us? There are plenty of jobs to go around for everyone.

Invasion is quite the opposite its not nearly harsh enough. Plenty of jobs. LOL! The jobless rate is the highest it has been in years. Plus, tax paying citizens have to pay for these illegal invading aliens children to go to school, medical bills and God knows what else. These invading illegal aliens around here have taken literally every job that alot of the the high school kids would do during summer. Plus, drove the prices of manual labor down almost 40%.

cotts135
11-10-2008, 08:19 PM
Illegal is illegal irregardless of circumstance/



Would you apply that same standard Warrantless wiretapping and waterboarding?

Pete
11-10-2008, 08:57 PM
I have noticed an avoidance in adressing the INVASION of illegals alliens from the southern borders for years.
I believe they really want them to come as fast as they can.
Its a 1 week 100 percent fix. Simple fast and inexpensive.
Most politicians on both sides are unamerican and are sneaky little ----- They are lower than drug dealers in my book. Guilty of treason against the entire nation.

But please don't ask me what I really think.
Being Polite regaurds

Pete

Hoosier
11-10-2008, 09:02 PM
Would you apply that same standard Warrantless wiretapping and waterboarding?

Little off subject don't you think. Ask the people in the trades if there are plenty of jobs, how about manufacturing. When you do bid a job you hear someone else bid it for less then you were getting 15 years ago, and said if anyone comes in under that give them a call. These people use all illegals. There isn't enough work to go around and whats there is getting done by illegals. Any trade that you don't need to be licensed to do. So most of residential construction. Also here the unions don't require green cards so they can work on commercial to.

Bob Gutermuth
11-10-2008, 09:12 PM
Come here legally thru the front door or don't come. For my money every illegal needs to be cuffed, stuffed and deported!

RedHeadedHurricane
11-10-2008, 09:17 PM
Come here legally thru the front door or don't come. For my money every illegal needs to be cuffed, stuffed and deported!


Bob, I sure do like the way you think!!!

YardleyLabs
11-10-2008, 09:22 PM
They were both running against George Bush, whose own position they agree with & which is in direct conflict with what most US citizens think & want enforced.

.....

I think this is a correct answer. While McCain changed his position for the campaign, he has always favored immigration reform that would provide current illegals with a path the citizenship. Obama's position is pretty similar. I also think the opinion of most citizens is a little more complicated than cuff 'em and throw them out.

Bob Gutermuth
11-10-2008, 09:27 PM
Actually I'm responding with my wallet more than anything. Why in heck should the taxpayers be holding the bag for school, medical, social security and such funds for those who are here illegally? We have enough citizens to support as it is. Hospitals in the southwest are spending a fortune caring for illegals, and they are a substantial burden on the law enforcement establishemnt and prison system as well. Again we have enough costs involved in our own committing crimes so that we don't need to be spending money on folks who shouldn't even be here.

luvmylabs23139
11-10-2008, 09:28 PM
Come here legally thru the front door or don't come. For my money every illegal needs to be cuffed, stuffed and deported!



I agree 100%!!!!!!

RedHeadedHurricane
11-10-2008, 09:33 PM
Amen and double ditto!

Cody Covey
11-11-2008, 12:57 AM
Would you apply that same standard Warrantless wiretapping and waterboarding?okay ill play along please point out the law where its illegal

Richard Halstead
11-11-2008, 01:39 AM
I like the idea of the FairTax that has been promoted by Mike Huckabee, the plan can captue revevue from those that don't pay taxes. Examples of those that w6uld be taxed:

illegal aliens
drug dealers
prostitution
The tax is based on personal consumption.

YardleyLabs
11-11-2008, 06:22 AM
okay ill play along please point out the law where its illegal

I've always thought this was pretty clear and never noticed an exception that said except when the President thought it was important.

U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Geneva Convention, Article 13 (Note: Adopted by 2/3 vote of Congress, signed by President and having the full effect of law):


"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."

Joe S.
11-11-2008, 07:27 AM
Little off subject don't you think.

No, Marvin brought up the whole basic "What part of illegal don't you understand?" point so the linkage was good...

...but I'm in general agreement with Bob. I don't think they should all be cuffed and stuffed, I do think the majority of them need to leave and re-enter legally.

Were it up me, I'd take the 4ID along with the federalized National Guard on the border states and deploy them to protect the southern border...we are at war, right? Please don't give me the posse comitatus issue because if we can find a way to do domestic spying and "inhanced" interrogation, posse comitatus is a walk in the park.

In Prince William Country, VA, right after the county passed an law allowing police to check the resident status of those involved in crimes, the average number of children in public school classes fell. I don't have the exact number. To suggest illegals aren't an impact on schools and other social services is to deny reality.

Look, I'm all for people wanting to come to America and make a better life but it should start with following the laws. I'm pretty sure I could make a better life for myself and my family if I walked into a bank and took all the cash they had available but the law says if I do that I end in a 6X10 cell with another guy who keeps wanting to call me Sweetness.

Kind Of Conservative In This Area Regards,

Joe S.

RedHeadedHurricane
11-11-2008, 07:35 AM
I like the idea of the FairTax that has been promoted by Mike Huckabee, the plan can captue revevue from those that don't pay taxes. Examples of those that w6uld be taxed:

illegal aliens
drug dealers
prostitution
The tax is based on personal consumption.

This is by far one of the best ideas out there. It would definitely keep people from righting off personal items as work related as well as tax those that use the most and want toys. Even though I really like this idea I completely understand that I would be one of those being taxed hard. I have alot of toys. Huckabee was a pretty darn good governor for Arkansas. Actually I think he was quite a bit better than Clinton.

cotts135
11-11-2008, 08:12 AM
okay ill play along please point out the law where its illegal

Ok first the Administration has admitted that they have spied on Americans. Condolezza Rice on Meet the Press Dec 18, 2005:

MR. RUSSERT: The law is very clear that a person is guilty of an offense unless they get a court order before seeking to wiretap an American citizen. Why did the president not get a court order? . . .

SEC'Y RICE: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, exactly. FISA, which came out of 1978 at a time when the principal concern was, frankly, the activities of people on behalf of foreign governments, rather stable targets, very different from the kind of urgency of detection and thereby protection of a country that is needed today. And so the president has drawn on additional authorities that he has under the Constitution and under other statutes.
General Michael Hayden also spoke out about this same issue. In an appearance at the National press club he said the following

"If FISA worked just as well, why wouldn't I use FISA? To save typing? No. There is an operational impact here, and I have two paths in front of me, both of them lawful, one FISA, one the presidential -- the president's authorization. And we go down this path because our operational judgment is it is much more effective. So we do it for that reason."
Now if you read the statue it is clear how illegal this second path is. The Fisa laws at that time read Section 1809 of FISA, which expressly provides that "[a] person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. . . ." And Section 2511(2)(f) provides that FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted."

Simply put the law says there is no second path for eavesdropping and people using that defense which the Administration clearly did are breaking the law.

There is no authority anywhere that says the President can willfully violate a criminal Law that was passed by Congress. NONE



Waterboarding has been outlawed by the Geneva convention now for years that one I suggest you look up yourself

Marvin S
11-11-2008, 08:57 AM
I like the idea of the FairTax that has been promoted by Mike Huckabee, the plan can captue revevue from those that don't pay taxes. Examples of those that w6uld be taxed:

illegal aliens
drug dealers
prostitution
The tax is based on personal consumption.

Richard - You had a chance to present this on another thread - but here's an answer. Several years back in an effort ensure all paid something into the system, especially the coupon clippers, the AMT was born. It was meant for those rich people who paid little or no tax. Today the class that gets hit hardest is the middle class. The Fair Tax idea stinks.

Of the three groups of people you mention the first two should not exist if enforcement was doing their job, the third should be legalized, regulated & taxed heavily.


This is by far one of the best ideas out there. It would definitely keep people from righting off personal items as work related as well as tax those that use the most and want toys. Even though I really like this idea I completely understand that I would be one of those being taxed hard. I have alot of toys. Huckabee was a pretty darn good governor for Arkansas. Actually I think he was quite a bit better than Clinton.

The Huckster is not a viable choice in those states that vote red - being better than Clinton is not a great recommendation - & he likes to spend if one can believe the reports done on his record.

Setting tax policy based on a concern of perceived injustice is not a good baseline to start from. I believe the Flat Tax to be the the tax that has the greatest potential to be an income generator for government without the built in flaws of the other systems.

Bob Gutermuth
11-11-2008, 09:13 AM
By what stretch of any imagination does either the Constitution or the Geneva convention apply to enemy combatants who are not part of a nations armed forces? Those who fight for Al Qaeda are not part of a recognized army of any nation state.

Pete
11-11-2008, 09:33 AM
Watching one of those 60 minute type shows they mentioned that our prisons contained 29 percent illegal alliens of the estemated 12 that crossed. I don;t know if that number is true or not. But an average of 70 grand a year that we spend on the inmates ( number also given by talking head) That a whole lot of wasted money. And a large percentage of creeps we have given a free pass to rape and pillage.
We already have the people captured . why not pack um in to a cattle truck and haul them from wence they came. After the border is closed they can't get back in unless we let them.

There is a really good reason why this mess continues and goes unchecked.

Pete

cotts135
11-11-2008, 09:35 AM
By what stretch of any imagination does either the Constitution or the Geneva convention apply to enemy combatants who are not part of a nations armed forces? Those who fight for Al Qaeda are not part of a recognized army of any nation state.

The wiretapping was done on American citizens not always on Al Qaeda.

The Supreme court stated in Hamdan that: "the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda."
Further reading of that ruling would suggest that because of the CIA's interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, the Administration might be in danger of violating the War crimes act.

You can check this link:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0DD8AE88-BDFD-4844-B1F1-3466E273D342

YardleyLabs
11-11-2008, 09:48 AM
By what stretch of any imagination does either the Constitution or the Geneva convention apply to enemy combatants who are not part of a nations armed forces? Those who fight for Al Qaeda are not part of a recognized army of any nation state.

The 4th amendment is the law of the country, not the person. It applies to all government activity in the country. In addition, warrantless surveillance has not been restricted to non-citizens.

The concept of "enemy combatants" is exactly what the Geneva Convention was written to address. I assume you actually meant to say "illegal combatants" which had been the term used by the administration in its efforts to deny convention rights to those detained. The administration has lost every single court test of this theory. The language of the treaty is very clear. Either the detained individuals are combatants,which would make them subject to the Geneva Convention, or they are criminals, which would make them subject to our justice system.

Either way, the administration's activities have been lawless by design. That is, the administration has argued that the activities are above the law because they are being carried out on the orders of the President as Commander in Chief during a time of war. Nothing in our Constitution has ever been interpreted to give the president such broad authority. The whole nature of our government of checks and balances is that no one, including the president, is above the law.

Bob Gutermuth
11-11-2008, 09:54 AM
I totally disagree with SCOTUS on this decision.

America has done worse to its own citizens, eg the Lincoln conspirators, who were held in deplorable conditions and tried by military tribunal though all were civillians. In more recent times the German saboeturs involved in Operation Pastorius were tried by military tribunal not a civillian court. Members of both conspiracies were executed. Yet I have never heard anyone complain about their treatment. Here we are talking about a group with the ability to get nukes and kill thousands of our people, if it were up to me I would have hired some people who are ex-Kempetai and let them work on the terrorists.

Hoosier
11-11-2008, 09:59 AM
So are the liberals strict constitutionalist on the 4th amendment, but also believe the constitution is a living document in all other situations. You can't have it both ways. Not that I want to start anything with Jeff he's a little to articulate for me.

YardleyLabs
11-11-2008, 10:08 AM
I totally disagree with SCOTUS on this decision.

America has done worse to its own citizens, eg the Lincoln conspirators, who were held in deplorable conditions and tried by military tribunal though all were civillians. In more recent times the German saboeturs involved in Operation Pastorius were tried by military tribunal not a civillian court. Members of both conspiracies were executed. Yet I have never heard anyone complain about their treatment. Here we are talking about a group with the ability to get nukes and kill thousands of our people, if it were up to me I would have hired some people who are ex-Kempetai and let them work on the terrorists.
How is it that you cling so tightly to the 2nd amendment and are so willing to flush the others down the tubes? We have clearly done some terrible things in war and the courts have normally dragged their heels in reviewing these cases to avoid a confrontation that would actually create a problem in the prosecution of war. At issue in the administration's legal losses has been the fact that it has never been able to show any clear and present danger warranting an emergency action. Of all the "wars" we have ever been involved with, this one is probably the least threatening we have faced as a country and the one least deserving of special treatment by the courts. In many cases, the administration appears to have taken its legal positions only to establish precedent for extending Presidential power.

Bob Gutermuth
11-11-2008, 10:20 AM
It is my opinion that the Constitution is meant to give rights to citizens and those legally in the country, ergo I have no problem with extraordinary treatment of those who are neither, or those with whom America is at war. While this is not as big a shooting war as say WWII, it is potentially the most destructive of any war we have fought. In no previous war did we have the chance of a nuke device or CBW weapon being set off on our own soil and killing private citizens, nor were we fighting such a covert war with enemy combatants free to come and go and act as a fifth column within the nation to such an extent as is possible now. My concern is with the rights and welfare of law abiding loyal Americans and the rights or lack thereof vis a vis the enemy and their agents is no concern of mine.

As to the RKBA, if the government cannot or will not protect me and mine I will.

mjh345
11-11-2008, 10:24 AM
I totally disagree with SCOTUS on this decision.

.

So I presume we should just ignore any SCOTUS decision you totally disagree with. Remember the majority of the SCOTUS was appointed by conservative Republican presidents

From the tenor of your posts, that would be a scary situation

Bob Gutermuth
11-11-2008, 10:28 AM
NO, I didn't say that 'we' should ignore it, I disagree with it as I do with Roe v Wade, Miranda v Arizona, Furman v Georgia and others. I might have to live under the decisions SCOTUS makes, I don't have to like or agree with them.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice"Sen Barry M Goldwater.

K.Bullock
11-11-2008, 10:49 AM
The 4th amendment is the law of the country, not the person. It applies to all government activity in the country. In addition, warrantless surveillance has not been restricted to non-citizens.

The concept of "enemy combatants" is exactly what the Geneva Convention was written to address. I assume you actually meant to say "illegal combatants" which had been the term used by the administration in its efforts to deny convention rights to those detained. The administration has lost every single court test of this theory. The language of the treaty is very clear. Either the detained individuals are combatants,which would make them subject to the Geneva Convention, or they are criminals, which would make them subject to our justice system.

Either way, the administration's activities have been lawless by design. That is, the administration has argued that the activities are above the law because they are being carried out on the orders of the President as Commander in Chief during a time of war. Nothing in our Constitution has ever been interpreted to give the president such broad authority. The whole nature of our government of checks and balances is that no one, including the president, is above the law.
I guess I understand where your coming from. But wouldn't common sense tell us that these guys are not run of the mill street thugs or just simply political dissenters. When they strike they strike big. Should we sit idly by and let it happen?

There are several by the way that have been killed on the field of battle after they were released from prison.


Mohammed Yusif Yaqub
aka
Mullah Shahzada

* Reports of the release, return to the battlefield, and subsequent death in combat of Mullah Shahzada, while reported in the press, is always attributed to unnamed insiders.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][26][30]
* The official list of Guantanamo captives included a man the same name, Haji Shahzada who remained in custody years after the stories that Mullah Shahzada had been reported to have been released, and killed in combat. Haji Shahzada was one of the 38 captives whose Combatant Status Review Tribunal determined they had not been an enemy combatant in the first place.
* On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials, for the first time, tied the reports that "Mullah Shahzada" had returned to the battlefield to the name of one of the captives on the official list of Guantanamo captives, Mohammed Yusif Yaqub.[8] According to Reuters summary of their testimony:

"Released May 8, 2003, he assumed control of Taliban operations in Southern Afghanistan and died fighting U.S. forces on May 7, 2004."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedl y_returned_to_battle

Considering that they are being released to fight again, I would say they are getting better treatment than the prisoners they are taking.

I will spare you the video of what happens to al-Qaeda prisoners.

cotts135
11-11-2008, 10:58 AM
It is my opinion that the Constitution is meant to give rights to citizens and those legally in the country, ergo I have no problem with extraordinary treatment of those who are neither, or those with whom America is at war.

Hey, you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. What is it? It sounds like you want to suspend the laws for certain classes of people. I hope that is not the case.

K.Bullock
11-11-2008, 11:13 AM
Hey, you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. What is it? It sounds like you want to suspend the laws for certain classes of people. I hope that is not the case.


Well yeah ..non U.S. citizens:rolleyes: Otherwise Acorn would have been registering voters in the middle east.

...on second thought they probably did.

Bob Gutermuth
11-11-2008, 11:13 AM
I believe in the rule of law, however I do not think that constitutional guarantees apply to non citizens and illegal aliens. Is that clear enough? it is my opinion, nothing more.

Matt McKenzie
11-11-2008, 11:25 AM
NO, I didn't say that 'we' should ignore it, I disagree with it as I do with Roe v Wade, Miranda v Arizona, Furman v Georgia and others. I might have to live under the decisions SCOTUS makes, I don't have to like or agree with them.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice"Sen Barry M Goldwater.

Not only that, but this year, I take issue with Georgia v Alabama and Georgia v Florida. I didn't care for the outcome of either one.

Hew
11-11-2008, 11:36 AM
Well yeah ..non U.S. citizens:rolleyes: Otherwise Acorn would have been registering voters in the middle east.

...on second thought they probably did.
Exactly...

RedHeadedHurricane
11-11-2008, 11:51 AM
Hey, you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. What is it? It sounds like you want to suspend the laws for certain classes of people. I hope that is not the case.

The constitution is for only those that are U.S. citizens or within our country legally.

Terry Britton
11-11-2008, 12:08 PM
The constitution is for only those that are U.S. citizens or within our country legally.

Like it or not, that is not how our courts look at the constitution. I think they started looking at it differently when illegal aleins started killing each other rather than going to authorities over various disputes.

Does anyone realize how many illegal aleins fought for us, and sacrificed during WWII?

Terry Britton
11-11-2008, 12:09 PM
I believe in the rule of law, however I do not think that constitutional guarantees apply to non citizens and illegal aliens. Is that clear enough? it is my opinion, nothing more.

That is my opinion too, but was straightned out by several lawyers in a debate on another forum.

cotts135
11-11-2008, 12:19 PM
I believe in the rule of law, however I do not think that constitutional guarantees apply to non citizens and illegal aliens. Is that clear enough? it is my opinion, nothing more.

I have no problem with your opinion and I even share some of it's tenets. That However is not what I was getting at. As Hamdan stated Al-qaeda is covered under the Geneva convention..Whether you agree with that or not. As of today that is the law.
Your statement "I have no problem with extraordinary treatment of those who are neither, or those with whom America is at war" .suggests to me that working outside the letter of the law is ok

Also note No where in my posts have I said anything about Al-qaeda falling under the Constitution.

Joe S.
11-11-2008, 01:00 PM
In many cases, the administration appears to have taken its legal positions only to establish precedent for extending Presidential power.

DING-DING-DING! We have a winner.

In writing for the SCOTUS, Justice O'Conner said: "A state of war is not a blank check for the president."

They attempt to assert powers that they themselves would decry should any other administration attempt the same thing. Look at the flip-flop the VP had between his time on the Hill and is time as a member of the Executive or not depending on how he views it at the moment.

Exactly Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-11-2008, 01:09 PM
Should we sit idly by and let it happen?

Have you seen ANYTHING that suggests that is what is being suggested?

Plain Regards,

Joe S.

Pete
11-11-2008, 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.Bullock http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=358335#post358335)
Should we sit idly by and let it happen?

Have you seen ANYTHING that suggests that is what is being suggested?

Plain Regards,

Joe S.





Not securing our southern borders suggests that exactly. They have siezed quite a few of them already. And since it appears to be a catch and release system who knows what kind of vermon reside here.

I'm sure there are thousands of them setting up shop as we speak.

What is stopping them from coming in from the south. Its a living, breathing, invisable trojen horse.

Pete

YardleyLabs
11-11-2008, 02:38 PM
Actually, the rule of law applies to citizens and non-citizens and, among non-citizens, it applies to those here legally and those here illegally. If you think about it, this is essential. Otherwise, the government could deny you all rights including habeas corpus simply by declaring you to be a non-citizen. In that case you would not even be able to prove you were a citizen. This is effectively how the administration has attempted to use the declaration of someone to be an "illegal combatant."

The Justice Department argued that the President had sole authority to declare someone to be an illegal combatant and that this decision was not subject to review by anyone including the courts because that would represent a violation of the separation of powers. In thinking about that one, imagine that Obama is creating his giant domestic police force and decides that republicans are illegal combatants. While I may have voted for Obama, I have no more desire to see him with that kind of authority than I did Bush and Vice Pit Bull Cheney.

The fundamental difference between legal residents (citizens or non-citizens) and illegal residents is that the latter may be incercerated indefinitely simply by showing that they are here illegally. They have the right to a hearing to determine the legality of their status. If found to be illegal they may be deported, but not unless there is a country willing to take them (often a problem). In the absence of such a country, they may be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. However, to imprison them for any other crime requires that they be tried for that crime with full protection of law.

The purpose of our rights of due process is not to protect criminals; it is to protect all of us who may be charged with crimes at any time whether we are guilty or not. When you remove due process from one person because you know they are guilty, you remove it from all of us regardless of guilt or innocence. The Bush administration does not want to face this constraint of justice for a few different reasons:
It doesn't want to disclose the nature or source of its evidence for fear of compromising intelligence sources.
It doesn't have evidence that would withstand examination.
The evidence it has was gathered through torture or other illegal activities.For the first consideration, courts have long had procedures under which a judge would review the evidence to determine how to balance the requirements of justice with those of security. For the others, Judges generally have no patience.

For years, the administration has flaunted the requirements of law, justifying its position because of the dangerous characters of those maintained at Guantanamo. Over the years it has also released many of those incarcerated -- some against whom there was no evidence at all and others for reasons not published. In doing so, it has left a huge problem for the Obama administration. Obama, even if he chose to, cannot continue the illegal incarceration without providing procedures for timely judicial review as the courts have demanded. However, as has been apparent in the small number of cases the administration has prosecuted, the evidence is not necessarily strong even by the relaxed standards applied by the tribunal. As a consequence, many if not most of the people incarcerated will need to be released even though few or no countries are willing to take them. This is not the fault of the justice system, it is the fault of the administration that chose to act in such an illegal manner from the beginning. The administration has known this for some time and has simply dragged its feet knowing that it would be able to avoid accountability by waiting until Bush's term expired and they could all leave town.

Joe S.
11-11-2008, 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.Bullock http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=358335#post358335)
Should we sit idly by and let it happen?

Have you seen ANYTHING that suggests that is what is being suggested?

Plain Regards,

Joe S.





Not securing our southern borders suggests that exactly. They have siezed quite a few of them already. And since it appears to be a catch and release system who knows what kind of vermon reside here.

I'm sure there are thousands of them setting up shop as we speak.

What is stopping them from coming in from the south. Its a living, breathing, invisable trojen horse.

Pete

You do know that the President as Commander-In-Chief, makes that decision, right?

Had troops been deployed across the southern border in stead of Iraq, I'd been all for it. Several news organizations have reported "confirmed" contacts between aQ and MS-13. MS-13 is just plain bad news...

Take Care Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-11-2008, 05:11 PM
Wrote a whole bunch of REALLY great stuff.

Jeff Goodwin, Bringer of Serious Heat.

Nicely Done Regards,

Joe S.

Hew
11-12-2008, 05:16 PM
Otherwise, the government could deny you all rights including habeas corpus simply by declaring you to be a non-citizen. In that case you would not even be able to prove you were a citizen. This is effectively how the administration has attempted to use the declaration of someone to be an "illegal combatant."
Gosh, that sounds horrible. How many US citizens did Bush and his henchmen do that to?


For years, the administration has flaunted the requirements of law, justifying its position because of the dangerous characters of those maintained at Guantanamo. Over the years it has also released many of those incarcerated -- some against whom there was no evidence at all and others for reasons not published.
Nearly 7 out of 10 Gitmo detainees have been released, with another 20% of the remaining ready to go but there's either no country that will take them or they'll be treated harsher than at Gitmo. I think you'd be making a mistake to equate their release with a lack of evidence or "no evidence at all" against them, unless of course you're asserting gross incompetence by the military in capturing them in the first place. Common sense would seem to indicate that the "reasons not published" for previous releases likely include: they've been detained a reasonable amount of time relative to their crime, they're no longer of use to us, they're no longer considered a threat to us, or a combination of all of the above. Perhaps you'd care to vouch for, and take in as borders, some of those remaining 20%...they being so innocent and all?


In doing so, it has left a huge problem for the Obama administration. Obama, even if he chose to, cannot continue the illegal incarceration without providing procedures for timely judicial review as the courts have demanded. However, as has been apparent in the small number of cases the administration has prosecuted, the evidence is not necessarily strong even by the relaxed standards applied by the tribunal. As a consequence, many if not most of the people incarcerated will need to be released even though few or no countries are willing to take them. This is not the fault of the justice system, it is the fault of the administration that chose to act in such an illegal manner from the beginning.
LOL. A preemptive strike at excusing Obama from fulfilling his campaign promises re: Gitmo/detainees and he hasn't even taken office yet?!? Classic. It's going to be funny (but a relief) when a year after Obama is sworn in and Gitmo is still running strong. Obama (and his sycophants) are discovering that it's a lot easier to toss bombs from the back bench than it is to have the buck stop on his desk.


The administration has known this for some time and has simply dragged its feet knowing that it would be able to avoid accountability by waiting until Bush's term expired and they could all leave town.
That's a load of poo. Resolution of individual detainees' cases has been an on-going process since they first opened Gitmo (that's how nearly 70% have been released). Congress passed two different laws pertaining to military tribunals (both with the significant support of conservative Democrats) and the Bush Admin. was proceeding accordingly. The Supreme Court threw yet another wrench in the works this past summer. Sorry Bush couldn't get it all resolved to your liking in the past 3 months. I'm guessing by your preemptive excuse making for Obama that you don't have much faith that Barry's gonna get it all ironed out to your satisfaction in the next four years.

YardleyLabs
11-12-2008, 07:59 PM
Gosh, that sounds horrible. How many US citizens did Bush and his henchmen do that to? A small number and it backed down immediately on those. The "problem" is that under international law, treaty obligations, and U.S. law (most notably the Constitution), there are only two real vehicles for handling prisoners in a declared or undeclared war. The first is to treat them as prisoners of war subject to all protections and guarantees of the Geneva Convention. The second is to treat them as criminals under the laws of the country where they conducted their activities and were first detained, under International Law for war crimes, or under U.S. laws. In each of these venues, prisoners have rights and the captors have responsibilities to uphold those rights. This structure has operated with a lot of success and a few blemishes for a lot of conflicts both more and less serious than the "war on terror."

The problem of Guantanamo arose from the fact that the administration decided that all of these niceties were too inconvenient. It invented legal theories out of thin air in an effort to show that protections that have been part of our common law since 1640 and were considered pretty important to our founders are now irrelevant if the President decides they are inconvenient. That decision has haunted the administration as every court decision has basically said, "Hey guys, you can't just make up whatever laws you want when the old ones are inconvenient."



Nearly 7 out of 10 Gitmo detainees have been released, with another 20% of the remaining ready to go but there's either no country that will take them or they'll be treated harsher than at Gitmo. I think you'd be making a mistake to equate their release with a lack of evidence or "no evidence at all" against them, unless of course you're asserting gross incompetence by the military in capturing them in the first place. Common sense would seem to indicate that the "reasons not published" for previous releases likely include: they've been detained a reasonable amount of time relative to their crime, they're no longer of use to us, they're no longer considered a threat to us, or a combination of all of the above. Perhaps you'd care to vouch for, and take in as borders, some of those remaining 20%...they being so innocent and all?
Each of those prisoners could have been a Mother Theresa at the time they were "collected" but could now be expected to be full-fledged America hating potential supporters for other America hating organizations for the rest of their lives. I know I would be if I had been treated the same way. There is no way this situation will ever be resolved without negative consequences for the U.S. We are, unfortunately, reaping that which we sowed. Does that mean I am claiming that the detainees were "innocent?" No. However, a theater of war is not noted as being a place where fine distinctions are made between the "guilty" and the "innocent." In 2006, Republican Senator Arlen Spector stated that most of the prisoners were being held of "the flimsiest sort of hearsay."


LOL. A preemptive strike at excusing Obama from fulfilling his campaign promises re: Gitmo/detainees and he hasn't even taken office yet?!? Classic. It's going to be funny (but a relief) when a year after Obama is sworn in and Gitmo is still running strong. Obama (and his sycophants) are discovering that it's a lot easier to toss bombs from the back bench than it is to have the buck stop on his desk.

The buck was printed, framed and placed proudly on the President's desk by George himself almost six years ago. The intervening years have only made it worse. I don't think it's going to be at all easy to resolve.



That's a load of poo. Resolution of individual detainees' cases has been an on-going process since they first opened Gitmo (that's how nearly 70% have been released). Congress passed two different laws pertaining to military tribunals (both with the significant support of conservative Democrats) and the Bush Admin. was proceeding accordingly. The Supreme Court threw yet another wrench in the works this past summer. Sorry Bush couldn't get it all resolved to your liking in the past 3 months. I'm guessing by your preemptive excuse making for Obama that you don't have much faith that Barry's gonna get it all ironed out to your satisfaction in the next four years.
About 775 persons have been detained at Guantanamo as part of the war on terror. In 2005, 170+ were released without charge and about 70 were sent to other countries for detention. By 2005, 343 prisoners had received administrative reviews of their cases. A small number were cleared. 40% have not yet received any determination based on their hearing. The rest were identified for further detention or for transfer to other countries. Only two prisoners have been tried under the revised procedures and the administration was embarrassed by the results of both cases.

On balance, I believe that the activities of the administration at Guantanamo have done more damage to the interests of the United States than would have been done by any of the persons detained even had they simply been released back into the mountains of Afghanistan. Colin Powell said it well, "Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don't need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it," (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1043646920070610?feedType=RSS)

Hew
11-13-2008, 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hew http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=359053#post359053)
Gosh, that sounds horrible. How many US citizens did Bush and his henchmen do that to?



A small number and it backed down immediately on those. A "small number" indeed. Two (2) is the exact number of US citizens held without charge as a result of the War on Terror. As for the "backing down"...stopped completely after the Supreme Court ruling in '04 would be the most accurate framing of it. The "problem" is that under international law, treaty obligations, and U.S. law (most notably the Constitution), there are only two real vehicles for handling prisoners in a declared or undeclared war. Perhaps you can quote the most notable section of the Constitution dealing with foreign prisoners captured abroad? Good luck with that. ;-) The first is to treat them as prisoners of war subject to all protections and guarantees of the Geneva Convention. The second is to treat them as criminals under the laws of the country where they conducted their activities and were first detained, under International Law for war crimes, or under U.S. laws. In each of these venues, prisoners have rights and the captors have responsibilities to uphold those rights. This structure has operated with a lot of success and a few blemishes for a lot of conflicts both more and less serious than the "war on terror." That's all well and good, but my quote above that you're responding to was related to your original contention...you implied that the Bush Admin routinely denied habeas corpus to US citizens. They didn't. It happened twice and was stopped in 2004. Extending legal rights to foreign murderers captured abroad in an undeclared war is a distinctly seperate issue.

The problem of Guantanamo arose from the fact that the administration decided that all of these niceties were too inconvenient. It invented legal theories out of thin air in an effort to show that protections that have been part of our common law since 1640 and were considered pretty important to our founders are now irrelevant if the President decides they are inconvenient. I'm rather confident that the founding fathers fought and died for those legal protections for AMERICAN CITIZENS; and not for legal protections for foreigners captured abroad trying to KILL American citizens. As an aside, I always find it amusing when liberals, who believe that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document subject to change," trot out the founding fathers' intentions...as if they actually put any stock in those intentions other than the rare instances where it actually suits their argument. But I digress... There is indeed precedent in our current handling of terrorists. In '42 we captured eight German saboteurs in the US. Roosevelt had them tried by secret military tribunal and six of them were executed...all within two months of their capture. That decision has haunted the administration as every court decision has basically said, "Hey guys, you can't just make up whatever laws you want when the old ones are inconvenient."

Each of those prisoners could have been a Mother Theresa at the time they were "collected" but could now be expected to be full-fledged America hating potential supporters for other America hating organizations for the rest of their lives. Yes, and each of those prisoners could be citizens of the planet Klebnor. But I'm rather confident that the majority were/are murderous scum caught in the act of harming Americans or caught in the act of planning to hurt Americans. I know I would be if I had been treated the same way. There is no way this situation will ever be resolved without negative consequences for the U.S. We are, unfortunately, reaping that which we sowed. America's chickens are coming home....to roost, eh? Does that mean I am claiming that the detainees were "innocent?" No. However, a theater of war is not noted as being a place where fine distinctions are made between the "guilty" and the "innocent." In 2006, Republican Senator Arlen Spector stated that most of the prisoners were being held of "the flimsiest sort of hearsay." And 2000 Democrat Vice President candidate Joe Lieberman says Obama lacks experience to be president. Your point?

The buck was printed, framed and placed proudly on the President's desk by George himself almost six years ago. The intervening years have only made it worse. I don't think it's going to be at all easy to resolve. Of course it's not easy to resolve. What to do with those detainees wasn't an easy problem to begin with (unless you want to pretend that there's examples/blueprints for our country on how to deal with the wholesale battlefield capture of thousands of countryless foreigners, many with valuable/needed information, in an undeclared war that has no borders or boundries and no precedence in our history). But you're free to pretend Bush relished the opportunity to "throw our Constitution out the window" dealing with murdering asshats. Just as you're free to pretend that Obama's choices are limited on what to do once he assumes office. There's not a damn thing stopping him from keeping his campaign promise of shutting down Gitmo and trying the remaining detainees the day after he assumes office. Something tells me that a year from then, when Gitmo's still open for business, the lefts keening over Obama's trampling of "rights" for those detainees won't be nearly as loud it is now.

YardleyLabs
11-13-2008, 07:07 AM
Perhaps you can quote the most notable section of the Constitution dealing with foreign prisoners captured abroad? Good luck with that. :wink:
...
That's all well and good, but my quote above that you're responding to was related to your original contention...you implied that the Bush Admin routinely denied habeas corpus to US citizens. They didn't. It happened twice and was stopped in 2004. Extending legal rights to foreign murderers captured abroad in an undeclared war is a distinctly seperate issue.



No, I said the Bush administration routinely denied habeas corpus. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have one set of laws for citizens and another for non-citizens. From the foundation of our country to the present the courts have not distinguished between the two. That's a point that I also made in my original post.



And 2000 Democrat Vice President candidate Joe Lieberman says Obama lacks experience to be president. Your point?

And yours? I actually quoted Spector since he is the senior republican member of the judiciary committee with a fair knowledge of US law and judicial procedures.



There is indeed precedent in our current handling of terrorists. In '42 we captured eight German saboteurs in the US. Roosevelt had them tried by secret military tribunal and six of them were executed...all within two months of their capture.


The supreme court upheld Roosevelt's decision to use a military tribunal operating under the uniform code of military justice in trying the eight German soldiers. The basis for trying and executing the prisoners was that they were spies, operating without identification as enemy soldiers. Had they identified themselves as enemy soldiers, they would have been subject to the Geneva Convention. The fact that they were captured in the US had nothing to do with their treatment. Remember, that our own soldiers in Germany were captured in a country we invaded. The administration denied habeas corpus to the Guantanamo captives before it relented and suggested the tribunal approach. Prior to that it believed that no hearings were needed. Once it established the tribunal approach, it continued to deny habeas corpus and held that its actions were not subject to civilian court review. Roosevelt provided full protection under the law for the German soldiers including legal counsel and rights of appeal in civilian courts -- that's how the case ended up in front of the supreme court. A report by the American Bar Association on the administration's actions says:

"The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, "The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States." Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin, that right could hardly be denied to U.S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all."

Big difference.....