[nick95673]

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

A shorter jist of it

[silverdevil]

Well, you should know where I stand.

I believe that all people deserve the right to be proven guilty and that the presumption of innocense is a cornerstone of any good legal system. Why shouldn't terrorists get afforded the same legal rights as mass murderers, serial rapists, or even war criminals? These people deserve to be tried and done so in a manner consistent with international law.

Laws are enacted to protect people, not only from those who want to cause us harm, but also from the harm caused by those who want to do "good."

I'm glad the SC ruled that Bush doesn't have a blank check to do as he pleases, when he pleases, to whom he pleases and call it an action vital to winning the "war on terror." If Congress votes into law that Bush can have his tribunals, then so be it. Until then, the system was designed to keep control out of the hands of the idiot that happens to be President at the time.

[nick95673]

I don't even know how I feel on this yet. If these are just enemy combatants then I don't know what they did wrong. Shooting at an occupying force is what every holy book has been written about and is the source of most nations national pride. So how is shooting at American troops wrong. Nevermind I forgot the golden rule.

If we have real terrorist and not freedom fighters we need to convict them and execute them. If we have enemy combatants then whats the point. They wouldn't of been our enemy or a combatant if we didn't declare them our enemy and go to combat with them.

Imagine ok city was done to China. Now imagine China invades America in the name of fighting extreme christians. I am nearly an athiest but you could believe if the Chinese started bombing Stockton and occupied San Fran I would become a "radical enemy combatant". I would also not put on a uniform. Fighting in street clothes doesnt make you a pV$$y it is called homefield advantage. If someone invaded america and our army was destroyed would you put on fatigues and wear that target around? or would you shoot men in the head then go back to watering your yard? Would you stand up to a cannon or would you make bombs and blow up tanks where you could? I don't see what these "enemy combatants" are doing as wrong. I think we need to declare war with them and have clear objectives that we can accomplish and let them go when we are done like every other war. Or we need to try them and let them go for defending their land from an insane fear filled America.


Protecting your home from an occupying force=human nature
Retards flying planes in to buildings half way around the world=insane
the people who do the 1st are not likely to do the 2nd. All those who do the 2nd are likely to do the 1st.

[ZapThyCat]

Okay, I'm here.

Nick, the only problem that I have with what you said, is that most of Iraq wants us there. If 75% of California WANTED China here, kicking out Gov. Schwaz., then would you still be fighting?

We didn't so much invade Iraq to occupy it, but to liberate it. Most of the country wants us there. Only 25% of the country is sunni, and those are the guys that are fighting us. The Kurds love us to death, and the shites were happy to see us and kick out Saddam, who was the worst of the "two evils".

So most of Iraq wants us there, for the time being.

Now, back to the subject...

Right now I hate my government so much, I seriously don't think that ANYTHING that it does is good. I think both congress and Bush are on the same side, and it's the people of america that are getting duped. The people are played against each other at the whim of the politicians, using the media, and they are convinced to throw away their rights in order to gain security, just like good sheeple.

Liberty is at a premium right about now, however I think it's too late.

Regardless, I think that "terrorists" aren't the true enemy. Let them loose back in their own dirt country to try whatever they want. The real enemy is our government.