Did Anyone Here at One Point Support the Iraqi War?

College Confidential Community
121

<p>They are not American citizens, and why can't I play the war card if WE ARE AT WAR!?!? The fact of the matter is that we didn't support the german's rights in WWII, the Japanese' rights in WWII, the British' rights in the revolution, or the Vietnamese' rights in Vietnam. The proposition that we treat them like American citizens is absurd because they aren't. I don't think that we should torture them, or do anything out of the way to hurt them, simply hold them until bush gets off his high horse and ends the war. </p>

<p>I keep saying this but I don't think anyone has taken much notice to it "I don't support the war but I support the means to win it." If it will save American lives to keep these men in prison I say do it by all means neccessary. </p>

<p>All of you talking about the Patriot act, let me say that I do NOT support it. I don't think that the print is good, I don't believe in giving up MY RIGHTS, for MY FREEDOMS, but I do believe that Gitmo is just like any other POW camp. Don't look at it as a prison, because it isn't. (that was more directed towards Futurenyustudent than anyone).</p>

<p>And Sheed, please don't just say "Wow" tell me what you have against it. I would like to know and find some fault in either my logic or yours.</p>

122

<p>Don't look at [url=<a href="http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/nm_guantanamo_070430_ms.jpg%5Dthis%5B/url"&gt;http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/nm_guantanamo_070430_ms.jpg]this[/url&lt;/a&gt;] as prison? If anything it's worse.</p>

123

<p>
[quote]
why can't I play the war card if WE ARE AT WAR!?!?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A protracted war against a tactic DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT, give us carte blanche to abolish all human rights.</p>

<p>People like interelations put too much trust in government. When government is trusted, there is tyranny. When government is distrusted and questioned at every move, there's liberty. This administration had done nothing to deserve either my respect or my trust. Thus I will afford them neither. </p>

<p>I'm gonna quote Ben Franklin again, "Those who give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither and lose both."</p>

<p>And I'm opposed to this war because we don't have the means to win it. So quit now, while we still can.</p>

<p>Hold them? For what reason? What legal basis does the United States government have to hold these people in American prisons, incommunicado no less, where people are given specific rights under either the constitution or the Geneva convention? Have they been charged with something? Do they have criminal charges pending against them? If so, there's something called remand, and that's a legal basis. Have they been tried by an impartial court and jury, afforded adequate counsel, or been convicted beyond all reasonable doubt of some imprisonable offense? Then the legal basis is a prison sentence. But as far as I know, the answer to all the above questions is a resounding NO.</p>

<p>If Gitmo is a POW camp, the people held there are POWs and are therefore afforded specific rights under the Geneva Convention, which the United States signed and has a legal and contractual obligation to follow. If Gitmo is a prison, then the people held there are criminals and are afforded specific rights under the constitution. Either way, the United States Government has no legal basis to hold these people, and Amnesty Int'l and every other human rights organization should be banging down the doors of congress insisting and demanding that it be closed down and every one of those prisoners released until the United States can find a legal basis upon which to hold them in prison.</p>

<p>Last I checked, this is still the United States of America. A nation of laws.</p>

124

<p>So you keep SCREAMING about their rights! Please tell us what their rights are!!!</p>

125

<p>I wonder if there's going to be an Iraqi equivalent of Hogan's Heroes 40 years in the future. ACHHHHHMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

126

<p>
[quote]
And Sheed, please don't just say "Wow" tell me what you have against it. I would like to know and find some fault in either my logic or yours.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your logic in the quote below caught me off guard. I didn't think you were anyone would be soooo selfish as to go as far and say one person has more of a right to freedom than the next. I could go as far as to even say, Slave owners in the south back in the day could have said that EXACT same quote. Does that mean you would still believe that slavery is okay? I would hope not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't have a problem sacrificing THEIR liberties for MY freedoms.

[/quote]
</p>

127

<p>
[quote]
So you keep SCREAMING about their rights! Please tell us what their rights are!!!

[/quote]

[quote]
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

[/quote]

[quote]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[/quote]

[quote]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial

[/quote]
How's that?</p>

128

<p>That's great if they were indeed under the US Constitution. I don't believe they are. Therefore none of those come into play.:)</p>

129

<p>
[quote]
I don't believe they are.

[/quote]
Good for you. That doesn't make you right. :)</p>

130

<p>Gee... apparently some people very high up must agree with me. Otherwise don't you think it wouldn't be going on because it would have been stopped by now??</p>

<p>They are ENEMY COMBATANTS. They SHOULD NOT have rights under the US Constitution. Maybe under the Geneva Convention, but I'm not even sure about that since they are not a Foreign Military Service Member.</p>

131

<p>
[quote]
Gee... apparently some people very high up must agree with me.

[/quote]
And then again, there are some people really</a> high up that agree</a> with me, too.</p>

132

<p>Yea, speaking of which, that argument definitely needs to be resubmitted to the Supreme Court.</p>

133

<p>
[quote]
Yea, speaking of which, that argument definitely needs to be resubmitted to the Supreme Court.

[/quote]
Just because you disagree with it and think it should be overturned doesn't mean that it doesn't exist right now. Further, I think even our current neoconservative-dominated court (six of the nine members were collectively appointed by Reagan, H.W.Bush, and W.Bush) would not overturn it. It's not the kind of things that's open to interpretation; the Constitution is a legal document and person and citizen have very different legal meanings.</p>

134

<p>
[quote]
It's not the kind of things that's open to interpretation

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that a legal document isn't open to interpretation. Remember the whole amendments idea? Everything is open to interpretation my friend. This is the point of freedom of thought and speech.</p>

135

<p>
[quote]
just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that a legal document isn't open to interpretation.

[/quote]
I never said that a legal document isn't open to interpretation. I said that the definition of the word person as opposed to citizen is not open to interpretation. They are, quite clearly, very different things.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Remember the whole amendments idea?

[/quote]
I fail to see the connection you're trying to make. The process of amending the Constitution was put into place so that it would be able to change with the times.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Everything is open to interpretation my friend.

[/quote]
No, not everything is open to interpretation. Try to convince your English professor sometime that a simile and a metaphor are the same thing. They have clearly defined definitions which rule that they are not the same.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is the point of freedom of thought and speech.

[/quote]
No, it isn't. Freedom of speech and thought is NOT to allow someone to claim they're right when they're not just by saying "Hey, everything is open to interpretation!" It is to prevent repression, something supremely ironic for you to bring up when you're advocating that we take away the rights of a group of persons.</p>

136

<p>I seem to recall a historic document that started with "We the PEOPLE..."</p>

<p>With your opinion here, shouldn't that document have read "We the CITIZENS..."</p>

137

<p>
[quote]
No, it isn't. Freedom of speech and thought is NOT to allow someone to claim they're right when they're not

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who are YOU to judge what is right and wrong and to make a person other than yourself believe that? You bring up the example of illegal immigrants having the right to an education in your country, and you believe there is nothing wrong with that. As an American, I respect my country's borders and the borders of those to the north and south. It's not a matter of whether its explicitly stated or defined in the constitution; just like most issues that involve congress in the present day, its a matter of principle.</p>

138

<p>
[quote]
We the people of the United States...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wouldn't your interpretation of the wording imply that slaves, native americans, and other less-than-favorite groups were in on the signing of the constitution?</p>

139

<p>
[quote]
I seem to recall a historic document that started with "We the PEOPLE..."</p>

<p>With your opinion here, shouldn't that document have read "We the CITIZENS..."

[/quote]
It might help if you had ever read past the first few words of the Constitution. "We the People of the United States."</p>

<p>
[quote]
Who are YOU to judge what is right and wrong and to make a person other than yourself believe that?

[/quote]
Again, some things are, most definitely, either right or wrong. Right: 2+2=4. Wrong: 2+2=5. I do not judge. The dictionary judges. The Supreme Court judges. I have merely reported their rulings and informed you that a higher power than you has judged you wrong.</p>

<p>Further, it is utterly ridiculous that you take this tack now when you've been proven (yes, proven) wrong. Throughout this thread, you have pushed your own beliefs on others, insisted that they are right. Now, when you can no longer insist that you are right because a higher power has ruled you wrong, you take the tack that you should never have been judged in the first place - no matter that you deemed it reasonable to judge others. How immature. How childish. How hypocritical.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You bring up the example of illegal immigrants having the right to an education in your country, and you believe there is nothing wrong with that.

[/quote]
That was not an example. I was using the case as proof that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone. That is what the Supreme Court decided in that case. As it says people rather than citizens, it does exactly that: applies to people. It then applied that ruling to illegal immigrants getting an education in the country, but that is not pertinent to the point that I was making.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't your interpretation of the wording imply that slaves, native americans, and other less-than-favorite groups were in on the signing of the constitution?

[/quote]
I'm not sure if you were talking to me. If you are, then the answer would be no. They were not people "of" the United States. At the time of the signing of the Constitution, the United States had not yet spread "from sea to shining sea." The Native Americans were not a part of the United States. Further, at that point in time slaves were not "people." They were property.</p>

140

<p>
[quote]
They were not people "of" the United States.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So they weren't people of the United States, but ENEMY COMBATANTS outside the continental United States are "people of the United States." All makes sense now :confused:</p>