Comments on: Bush Signs Terror Detainee Bill

Bill Authorizes Tough Interrogations, Clears Way For Military Tribunals

It's just energizing to debate. Although, there's probably little to zero chance of changing anyone's mind on these things. People understandably get passionate when they're talking about something they believe in.

[ronniehm]

Yay, an intelligent mind. Thank you, jjasonham.

[ronniehm]

I asked a question about World War II. Answer it and I'll cut and paste the part of the Constitution that says habeas corpus can be suspended in matters of public safety. I'm not going debate with other people's opinions that you cut and paste and then be told that I'm the one who doesn't have anything to say for himself.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

"If anyone's interested, they could tell me what this bill allows us to do that we didn't do during World War II. We rounded up foreigners. We suspended habeus corpus. We eavesdropped on the enemy without warrants. We used our own judgement regarding torture. We won. "

Okay, I understand that habeas corpus can be suspended only in extraordinary times, like war. WWII was not a Holy War. There were more specifics as far as who the enemy was, and on top of that who our allies were. The entire world was in agreement about what needed to be done. The US suspended habeas corpus, but that was in reaction to the consensus that the WORLD had come to, and only after trying every other option before coming to that conclusion. This is Terror: Some pie in the sky IDEAL (it's probably not the correct word to use, but it's limitless boundaries apply). There are so many ways it's descriptions can be warped, especially by people in power. Just because we did it in WWII does not mean it was right, and whoever thinks it was right(which is a matter of opinion) can certainly agree that the US didn't just jump into those actions out of paranoia.

[frankly6]

WWJT - Who Would Jesus Torture?

[frankly6]

This bill and everyone responsible for passing it into law spits on the graves of EVERY American, soldier or not, who has ever sacrificed in the name of freedom and the constitution. The signing of this 'torture' bill is tantamount to the signing of a Death Warrant on Democracy.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[frankly6]

For what purpose then have we invented this whole policy and insinuated it into the minds of the SHEEPLE without giving them any chance to examine its underlying meaning? For what, indeed, if not in order to obtain in a roundabout way what is for our scattered tribe unattainable by the direct road?

[ronniehm]

OK, I'm not debating with Thomas Jefferson and a youtube video. As far as I know, neither of them can engage in a dialogue. I'll try again later.

[frankly6]

The video below explains what we've done to ourselves by passing this law.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[frankly6]

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." --Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[frankly6]

Even though everybody knew W was a mistake from the beginning, they voted him in because hating *** seemed more important than our Constitution. Ending abortion rights more important than our civil rights. The religious right more important than human rights. Go figure. Just remember WWJT - Who Would Jesus Torture?

[ronniehm]

If anyone's interested, they could tell me what this bill allows us to do that we didn't do during World War II. We rounded up foreigners. We suspended habeus corpus. We eavesdropped on the enemy without warrants. We used our own judgement regarding torture. We won.

[ronniehm]

I was getting a little tired of watching everyone debate themselves, so I tried to join the fun. It didn't work out.

"But we don't want real terrorists prosecuted in the criminal justice system, do we. And you know a good percent of them are terrorists or soon to be terrorists once released."

Why wouldn't we want them tried in our criminal justice system? Would that not represent America bringing justice to terrorists? Military tribunals actually seem like a conflict of interest to me. The military, the department most directly and intimately involved with the conflict, involved in their own trial (separate from the US court system), against people they have sworn to "bring to justice". Conflict of interests. Yes, to the people being tried, one would argue. With this current legislation, the definition of a terrorist as just been blurred, not explicitly saying who a terrorist is, which is just as dangerous. On top of that the writ of habeus corpus, a law that our forefathers obviously thought was critical enough to put in our constitution, is suspended. Not for everyone, but for "certain people" nonetheless. Any loophole made in our laws to deal with terrorists has the potential to be applied to anyone labeled as a terrorist using vague definitions.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg