Comments on: Rep. Peter King: ACLU Is "Tearing Down The United States"

[McHineguy]

I am in favor of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, you know the one that George Bush called "just a piece of paper"

.
Posted by johndevinejr at 2:13 PM : May 17, 2009

Bush II was NOT a conservative. His treatment of the government and its separation of pwers is a primary reason the GOP is in such dissarray today. We are busy sorting the actions of the last 8 years from our fundamental principles.

[McHineguy]

Make up your mind: are you a conservative, or do you believe in the constitution?
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 2:11 PM : May 17, 2009

If you really ask that question you dont understand true conservative principles. Im not surprised, many of the GOP do not understand what conseervative principles are either.

But to be fair, the term conservative has been distorted in recent years. Today it is used for social conservative (anti-abortion, anti gay, etc) principles as well as political conservative principles.

I am a political conservative who believes the constitution sets principles we should not violate. I am a social liberal who marched for civil rights.

[McHineguy]

Here's one you'll just LOVE:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 2:07 PM : May 17, 2009

LOL, dont know whether to laugh or cry. Limbaugh isnt my favorite guy either. But he makes intersting points of ideology.

[McHineguy]

How do you know whether these people are innocent of guilty?

Do these beliefs just come to you?

You make these statements as though they are facts known to everyone. These facts are in your head.

The only way you can determine guilt or innocence is through a TRIAL.

Military tribunals have been in use since the beginning of the country, but these were altered to such a degree that a number of Military Officials quit rather than participate.
We have to provide a measure of justice, not just for those accused, but for everyone.

The damage is already done, more terrorists have been created due to GITMO than would have been had we been just.
Posted by johndevinejr at 2:31 PM : May 17, 2009

Of course they dont "just come to me". Lets respect each other enough to trust the other might have good reason and logic. Based on that, I offer the following:

1. Yes, a fair court would be the ideal solution. But in this case, I dont think it can work. We can debate that if we ever get past the "shameonbush" part of this mess. Ill offer a few reasons later.
2. A trail isnt the ONLY way to judge guilt. Some of the detainees have proudly proclaimed their intent to wage Jihad.
3. Some of the detainees could be released, they just have no safe place to go. Im pretty sure they would be murdered if released in the US. Their home countries already say they will be killed.
4. Some of the detainees will kill others in retribution of their original capture. Are you prepared to accept that resonsibility? Or is the greater good served by keeping innocent detainees like we keep other innocent psychopaths.
5. How can we possibly believe that two diametrically opposed president have reached nearly the same conclusion regarding these detainees. This is the primary basis for my belief in their guilt, proven or otherwise.

But, if you get past the politically charged witch hunt you have to deal with a trial that solves the following:
1. People likely to murder others remain locked up.
2. Information disclosed at any hearing does not jeapordize the lives of others. That includes families of conspirators still living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc
3. Information disclosed does not jeopardize our own national security. We ARE still at war with the Jihadists.

I see no way you can satisfy premise 1 within the rules of law we apply to American citizens. Even the Geneva conventions admit that warriors and spies operate under different laws. But it seems the liberals of our country prefer to use domestic law in a theater of war. If you do that strictly, our soldiers become falsely accused of murder.

[McHineguy]

I didn't say that ALL of the terrorists are innocent, now did I?

But how can we find out which terrorists are innocent and which are guilty, unless we charge them with crimes, and put them on trial?

And I don't know what "facts" you allegedly showed me - I think you got the wrong poster. You've never shown me anything except an unyielding support of all things conservative.
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 2:05 PM : May 17, 2009

Last things first. Yes, I am a conservative. I believe Jefferson was a genius when he drafted the constitution and that we should work to preserve it in every way. That begins with mutual protection for all CITIZENS> Sadly for you, that includes Bush and the rest of the gOP.

Next. You often state that the detainees are innocent, or most detainees are innocent, and relate the tired story that they were "sold" by regional warlords. Once, there is enough truth in your story that it gained credibility. However, that all changed when the Bush administration began releasing detainees in 2004. It became obvious that many were innocent and others seemed to repent. They were released. What is left is die hard terrorists (Abu Zayahd?), warriors that shoul be released at wars end, or people who have no safe haven to be released.

As for your quest for public hearings. We had that discussion too. Many of the true facts surrounding the worst detainees cannot be released in a public court. Consider that pictures would show faces of those who helped arrest them. Or even our own soldiers who captured them. How can you even hold a trial when the accuser has died in the war? yet we know many of these people are dangerous if we release them. How do YOU propose we sort them out? If we release the wrong ones and they go home and murder their neighbor? I think in one of our earlier debate you went so far as to say the neighbor deserves to die if he helped us capture the terrorist.

So, bottom line. Bush made a lot of mistakes. I forgive him for that because it was a difficult time. But we dont correct that by making more mistakes. Adn releasing dangerous terrorists is a mistake.

[johndevinejr]

If you truly want what is right for todays detainees, then stop talking about Bush. He is gone. If these detainees are truly innocent, let them sue Bush for damages AFTER you gain their freedom.
Posted by McHineguy at 2:25 PM : May 17, 2009


How do you know whether these people are innocent of guilty?

Do these beliefs just come to you?

You make these statements as though they are facts known to everyone. These facts are in your head.

The only way you can determine guilt or innocence is through a TRIAL.

Military tribunals have been in use since the beginning of the country, but these were altered to such a degree that a number of Military Officials quit rather than participate.
We have to provide a measure of justice, not just for those accused, but for everyone.

The damage is already done, more terrorists have been created due to GITMO than would have been had we been just.

[McHineguy]

How else do you propose to determine which of these individuals should be held in jail for life and which should be released?

If we had used even rudimentary procedures in the beginning we would not be in this situation. This is the result of stupidity and incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration.

And so far republicans seem to be taking the position that we should continue to avoid fixing the problem and leave it to the next Administration the way Bush did.
Posted by johndevinejr at 1:56 PM : May 17, 2009

If you want true fact finding of each detainee guilt or innocence and the degree of the "crime", then go ahead. So far, I read mostly about how its going to hurt Bush. That, is just using the detainees for your own political gain. Bush is gone, not gonna run again, and your political motives embarrass us all while inflicting more harm on our troops and the detainees. Seems to me, that makes your witch hunt as bad as Bush.

Im pretty sure that Obama knows there are no innocent detainees at GITMO. Worse, I am pretty sure he knows which could be released if we could only find a safe place for them. Finally, I am pretty sure he knows of the ones who should be imrosined for life. A court hearing may satisfy misplaced ideals of freedom and equality but more likely such a hearing would create new threats towards people more innocent than the detainees.

That is the problem the liberals seem to forget. None of us conservatives want to imprison these guys forever. We just want to protect the people they threaten. In a few cases, we want to protect them from those who seek revenge in their homeland.

Finally, the laws most liberals are trying to apply do not apply. These detainees were caught in acts of war, not acts of crime. The Geneva conventions say we can/should detain them until wars end and they can go home. The geneva conventions often do not apply here, but neither do our civil laws. So, it becomes a matter of public debate on what to do with the detainees. I doubt that you will be interested if we give Bush and his administration immunity. Kinda takes your fun away doesnt it?

If you truly want what is right for todays detainees, then stop talking about Bush. He is gone. If these detainees are truly innocent, let them sue Bush for damages AFTER you gain their freedom.

[johndevinejr]

Here's one you'll just LOVE:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 2:07 PM : May 17, 2009

Perfect, Rush Limbaugh is about as AntiAmerican as you can get. But he has the right to privacy. The government cannot just abandon the law because it is easier for them.

[johndevinejr]

I think the primary difference in opinions seems to be that most republicans/conservatives seem to think that when the world becomes difficult and dangerous, the governments rights supercede the rights of the individual.

Democrats/liberals believe that the individuals rights under the Constitution should be upheld no matter how difficult and dangerous the world becomes.

The Declaration of Independence says, in part:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,.......

I am in favor of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, you know the one that George Bush called "just a piece of paper"

.

[hungry1968-15]

Of course I believe in the constitution. I am a true conservative and believe that Jefferson was smarter than most of us today.

The ACLU did not champion teh "Miranda Law". But they did support those who did. So, I will give them credit for that. But take note, they usually persue political agendas, personal freedoms come second. For example, their position on gun control is hardly constitutional.
Posted by McHineguy at 2:07 PM : May 17, 2009





Make up your mind: are you a conservative, or do you believe in the constitution?

[hungry1968-15]

Please give a concrete example of when the ACLU helped protect our freedoms. I can think of none. Worse, I can think of several times they were on the other side.
Posted by McHineguy at 1:41 PM : May 17, 2009





Here's one you'll just LOVE:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

[McHineguy]

The ACLU was responsible for the requirement that anyone arrested in the US be advised of his constitutional rights not to answer andy questions without an attorney.

Isn't this a form of protecting our freedom?
Do you think that we should not abide by the Constitution for each arrest?
Posted by johndevinejr at 2:01 PM : May 17, 2009

Of course I believe in the constitution. I am a true conservative and believe that Jefferson was smarter than most of us today.

The ACLU did not champion teh "Miranda Law". But they did support those who did. So, I will give them credit for that. But take note, they usually persue political agendas, personal freedoms come second. For example, their position on gun control is hardly constitutional.

[hungry1968-15]

Think about it for a minute before you run your predjudices again. If the detainees at GITMO today are as innocent as you claim, why does Obama not release them and make political arguments that would most certainly cleanse he and Nancy of all embarrassment?
Posted by McHineguy at 1:39 PM : May 17, 2009





I didn't say that ALL of the terrorists are innocent, now did I?

But how can we find out which terrorists are innocent and which are guilty, unless we charge them with crimes, and put them on trial?

And I don't know what "facts" you allegedly showed me - I think you got the wrong poster. You've never shown me anything except an unyielding support of all things conservative.

[johndevinejr]

Please give a concrete example of when the ACLU helped protect our freedoms. I can think of none. Worse, I can think of several times they were on the other side.
Posted by McHineguy at 1:41 PM : May 17, 2009

The ACLU was responsible for the requirement that anyone arrested in the US be advised of his constitutional rights not to answer andy questions without an attorney.

Isn't this a form of protecting our freedom?
Do you think that we should not abide by the Constitution for each arrest?

[johndevinejr]

Dear blind guy, Obama has been in power for 110 days and made several moves to close GITMO. Only the blind could believe that if detainees at GITMO were innocent that Obama would not be shouting that from the rooftop of the White House.
Posted by McHineguy at 1:44 PM : May 17, 2009

How else do you propose to determine which of these individuals should be held in jail for life and which should be released?

If we had used even rudimentary procedures in the beginning we would not be in this situation. This is the result of stupidity and incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration.

And so far republicans seem to be taking the position that we should continue to avoid fixing the problem and leave it to the next Administration the way Bush did.

[johndevinejr]

Personally, I think romero's thong is too tight. The Gitmo detainees have nothing to do with American Civil Liberties. They are TERRORISTS. In fact the ones that are still there are the worst of the worst who couldn't get a pass the last time. To isert himself in what is clearly a MILITARY issue that come with great risk and expense if moved to the criminal courts is absolutely stupid.
Posted by jgg00000008 at 12:27 PM : May 17, 2009

So you just wave the republican magic wand and declare a group of people terrorists without any kind of trial or evidence.
Not even using the George Bush GITMO Kangeroo Court.

That is the system used in the former USSR, China and Nazi Germany.

I think that is absolutely stupid,. also unAmerican.

[McHineguy]

You only "know" what the Bush-Cheney cabal told you ....
and the rest of us. Since the Bush admin has not been
noted for truthfulness, It is difficult to know exactly who /
what these people are. IDEOLOGY SHOULD -NOT-
TRUMP THE TRUTH.
Posted by JAMESC2002 at 1:26 PM : May 17, 2009

Dear blind guy, Obama has been in power for 110 days and made several moves to close GITMO. Only the blind could believe that if detainees at GITMO were innocent that Obama would not be shouting that from the rooftop of the White House.

[McHineguy]

...
Without the ACLU, many of our civil liberties would have simply disappeared over the years; fallen victim to ruthless people who would be happy to toss all our hard-won civil rights into the "optional" category, or revoke them entirely, as their whims dictate....

Posted by An-Historian at 12:16 PM : May 17, 2009

Please give a concrete example of when the ACLU helped protect our freedoms. I can think of none. Worse, I can think of several times they were on the other side.

[johndevinejr]

With that kind of a base, the Republican Party should rename itself the Neo-Nazi Party and parade around with banners of Rush Limbaugh's fat face scowling at you.

HAIL OBAMA!!!
Posted by walt1944 at 12:21 PM : May 17, 2009


Aren't they already doing that?

[McHineguy]

Many of the detainees are INNOCENT people that were "sold" to the the US military by tribal warlords, that were trying to get rid of their rivals.

Are the innocent detainees considered terrorists as well? Should they be held indefinitely, without being able to defend themselves, against whatever they're being accused of doing?
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 1:28 PM : May 17, 2009

Hujngry, you know better!!! I have provided you with other facts that you seem to ignore. Those innocents you claim were "sold" by warlords were released a long long time ago. By Bush, as early as 2004, and many from GITMO in 2005.

Your persistent claims are as much a lie as Nancy Pelosi.

But, its an easy choice. Obama wants to close GITMO. If the detainees are innocent, why is he having trouble finding homes for them? Why doesnt Obama expose them as part of the "sins of Bush"? He has no trouble doing that in other situations.

Think about it for a minute before you run your predjudices again. If the detainees at GITMO today are as innocent as you claim, why does Obama not release them and make political arguments that would most certainly cleanse he and Nancy of all embarrassment?