<p>What I was saying was that the other 80% may have committed crimes. I don't have a problem sacrificing THEIR liberties for MY freedoms. I know thats extremely selfish but its how I feel. Deal with it.</p>
<p>Wow .</p>
<p>We are fighting a war. I don't support that war, but because we are in one we should act like we are. I don't support it, but I support the means to win it.</p>
<p><<<i don't="" have="" a="" problem="" sacrificing="" their="" liberties="" for="" my="" freedoms.="">>></i></p><i don't="" have="" a="" problem="" sacrificing="" their="" liberties="" for="" my="" freedoms.="">
<p>I totally agree.</p>
</i>
<p>How do you see their civil liberties to be in conflict with your freedoms? By holding people indefinitely and giving them no rights we've essentially become a police state. MetdethGNR, if you love America so much, why do you have no respect for the 6th amendment?</p>
<p>Isn't that kind of umm....un-American?</p>
<p>That's exactly what I'm saying, Sheed.</p>
<p>Stop playing the war card. The fact that we're at war does NOT give us carte blanche to abolish the constitution. PERIOD. It does NOT give us the right to suspend any part of the constitution. We are a nation of laws. We DO NOT let cowboy conservative presidents go around abolishing constitutional rights at whim.</p>
<p>If you'd like to live in a real police state, then go live in North Korea, but America is a nation of laws. We DO NOT let cowboy presidents go around abolishing constitutional rights at whim because he can't take the criticism that comes with the job.</p>
<p>What I mean is that if I had to choose between the civil liberties of prisoners of war and our safety, I'd so go for our safety. </p>
<p>I realize that alot of the people taken in Guantanamo might be innocent. However, alot of them might be terrorists. So either we get them all and infringe upon their civil liberties for our safety, or we let them all loose, sacrifice our safety for their civil liberties. </p>
<p>I'd rather the first one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I mean is that if I had to choose between the civil liberties of prisoners of war and our safety, I'd so go for our safety.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, and in the meantime, let's flush our constitutional rights down the toilet too. What part of "Those who sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both." don't you understand? Wow, this country came a long way since 1776. </p>
<p>By the way, we already HAVE lost our civil liberties. Take a look at the PATRIOT Act. Bush can essentially send anyone to Gitmo for any reason, even without reason and hold them forever without access to a lawyer or anything else. Even US Citizens.</p>
<p>
[quote]
might be innocent
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you. I now move for a directed verdict of not guilty. Under the law, they CANNOT be sitting in prison. why? Reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>MethdethGNR, you might be a criminal. Should you be thrown in jail without a trial because it's a threat to my safety? By your logic, everyone who's ever been accused of a crime should be incarcerated indefinitely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MethdethGNR, you might be a criminal. Should you be thrown in jail without a trial because it's a threat to my safety? By your logic, everyone who's ever been accused of a crime should be incarcerated indefinitely.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you for that. Exactly my point. You are presumed innocent in this country until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by a court of law. MethdethGNR doesn't seem to understand that. Although this might be a distinction that he/she won't understand, since in another thread, he/she seems to actually associate dissent with disloyalty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, and in the meantime, let's flush our constitutional rights down the toilet too. What part of "Those who sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both." don't you understand? Wow, this country came a long way since 1776.</p>
<p>By the way, we already HAVE lost our civil liberties. Take a look at the PATRIOT Act. Bush can essentially send anyone to Gitmo for any reason, even without reason and hold them forever without access to a lawyer or anything else. Even US Citizens.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Other than completely ignoring the responsibilities of Congress for enacting such a law, aren't we mostly foregoing the Constitutional rights of noncitizens (which I imagine a number of people wouldn't agree exist in the first place) and not our own?</p>
<p>Doesn't matter. Denial of constitutional rights to noncitizens is discrimination on the basis of national origin (therefore constitutional rights DO exist for anyone in the US). Which, last I checked, by law, is strictly prohibited, any anyone who violates that law is in big doodoo, with fines and civil penalties. You're telling me that you have no rights when you go on vacation in, say Canada, and you get off the plane at Pearson airport? Canadian law also specifically guarantees the right to counsel, the right to confront your accusers, etc. Are you implying that in Canada, any cop can have you arrested with no legal recourse? </p>
<p>First, we deny constitutionally guaranteed rights to Gitmo detainees, and the next thing we know, US citizens have no constitutional rights. This has already happened. The president can now detain anyone for any reason and you have very little recourse. He should NEVER have that kind of power. That's the first step in becoming a nazi fascist police state.</p>
<p>When Bush said "you need to give up your constitutional rights for your safety", you should have given him a big finger and have had him deported for even thinking about doing such a thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I realize that alot of the people taken in Guantanamo might be innocent. However, alot of them might be terrorists. So either we get them all and infringe upon their civil liberties for our safety, or we let them all loose, sacrifice our safety for their civil liberties. </p>
<p>I'd rather the first one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This makes it sound so clean. I mean, so what if a few Arabs or Afghans are improperly incarcerated? What happens, though, is that eventually in countries that open the door to this kind of thing, political enemies start becoming the target. And then maybe, for instance, it's your older brother who is an activist in college or a good friend from high school who gets incarcerated, but by then, it's a lot harder to eradicate this kind of behavior because a lot of people simply won't go against it and won't believe that in the US there are powerful people that would do this sort of thing. Trust me, there are. Nixon did something quite close to this, for all intents and purposes. And Cheney was part of his staff at that time. Cheney, himself, thought nothing of destroying the career (and livelihood) of a CIA operative because her husband conducted a study that belied certain of the Administration's claims. And the Administration has tortured and lied about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Doesn't matter. Denial of constitutional rights to noncitizens is discrimination on the basis of national origin (therefore constitutional rights DO exist for anyone in the US).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except as stated prior these people have been arrested under the guise of "enemy combatants," and, as I imagine we are all familiar with, enemies captured don't have exactly the same rights as those arrested for, say, a speeding ticket.</p>
<p>Enemies...? Like, as in war? Then they're prisoners of war and are given specific rights under the Geneva convention.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, so what if a few Arabs or Afghans are improperly incarcerated?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please tell me you did not just write that. PLEASE!</p>
<p>it was sarcastic, sheed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Enemies...? Like, as in war? Then they're prisoners of war and are given specific rights under the Geneva convention.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So now it's not constitutionally illegal, but by international treaty?</p>
<p>Personally, I don't think it's right what we're doing, but I think it's important people recognize what we're not doing quite right instead of just making up constitutional law to agree with whatever they believe in.</p>