Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08

Then why aren't we putting these people on trial?

The problem stems from locking people up indefinitely without charging and trying them. Put them on trial.

As to this suicide bomber, it would seem that our ally, Kuwait, screwed things up with a trial that failed to keep a guilty man off the streets. With allies like that, who needs enemies!

Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08

Then why aren't we putting these people on trial?

The problem stems from locking people up indefinitely without charging and trying them. Put them on trial.

As to this suicide bomber, it would seem that our ally, Kuwait, screwed things up with a trial that failed to keep a guilty man off the streets. With allies like that, who needs enemies!

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly

When Obama gets elected president, he can let them all go free, shut down Gitmo, and remove the US from the war on terror, and everyone will live happy ever after.

When the Supreme court makes it illegal, then it's illegal. Until then, keep screaming, no one is listening.

Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08

Are you saying that enemy combatants should be captured and thrown in prison for life without ever having a trial?

Originally Posted by simps6845

Here is a copy/paste from the article:



In fact, one of the biggest reasons we even have the Constitution is to protect us from politicians, like the ones we currently have, during times of stress or danger. Yes, some constitutional provisions do mention exceptions, but there are no exceptions specified for simply being “at war.”

Anytime this issue comes up, invariably you’ll find people who claim that the Constitution doesn’t apply to foreigners – only Americans. The important point is that the Constitution doesn’t apply to Americans, it doesn’t apply to citizens, it doesn’t even apply to “people.” It applies to the federal government.

The body of the Constitution tells the federal government just what it is allowed to do. In some places it explains how the government is supposed to do things. The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do. Nothing more, and nothing less.

What you won’t find there, is the ability to restrict habeas corpus except in the specific instances mentioned above.

The essential point is that until a suspected “terrorist” receives due process – a fair and impartial trial – you can never know for sure whether or not this person even IS a terrorist! So, even if you think that foreigners shouldn’t have any rights, you still can’t be sure that they’re terrorists without due process – well, unless you trust everything your government does.

Originally Posted by justabubba

she is anti-choice and now has her bundle of joy. just wondering who is now charged with handling that responsibility now that she has traded on having the disabled child for political gain

Originally Posted by Anikdote

Nothing you posted is from any article of the constitution. You simply posted the opinion of someone that agrees with you. So until you can show me where in the constitution it grants any rights to POW's you've yet to prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by White Fox

The Constitution specifically applies to people living in the United States, whether or not they are citizens. It certainly has nothing to do with POW's, and there is no use in looking for it because it does not exist.

Originally Posted by simps6845

Let ud keep in mind that the prisoners at Gitmo are not classified as POWs. The White House has chosen to invent a new category so they can detain people forever. That is not exactly the best signal to send while lecturing the world about democracy and human rights. Some may even call them hypocrits..

Originally Posted by White Fox

Anyone who is an adamant terrorist committed to the destruction of the Western world through the use of violence and radical jihad needs to be held indefinably and does not deserve a trial in court of any kind. But instead of using taxpayers money to hold them there, they should be forced to work for the government making cheap manufactured goods so that they can pay for their own containment. The government should also make a profit out of all those oppressed terroristic workers, to give the taxpayers a break.

Originally Posted by simps6845

Let ud keep in mind that the prisoners at Gitmo are not classified as POWs. The White House has chosen to invent a new category so they can detain people forever. That is not exactly the best signal to send while lecturing the world about democracy and human rights. Some may even call them hypocrits..

Originally Posted by justabubba

she is anti-choice and now has her bundle of joy. just wondering who is now charged with handling that responsibility now that she has traded on having the disabled child for political gain

Originally Posted by Andaras

So in defense of your freedoms against terrorists, freedoms such as the right to a fair trial, you are willing to give up these freedoms in order to protect them? Sorry, here's me hoping conservatives will use some logic for once, I guess it's my fault I am yet again disappointed.