Defensive Carry banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,260 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Dear Terrorist, now that we have apprehended you (instead of killing you) at the cost of US Soldier’s lives I am ordered by the United States Supreme Court to advise you of your rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law but probably will be thrown out of court because it might be found prejudicial to your case. Same goes for any hard evidence we might have found on you.

You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at U.S. Taxpayers’ expense. If you choose to use a left-wing liberal attorney who will lie, cheat and bribe his way into your freedom, the U.S. Taxpayers will be more than happy to pay for it.

You have the right to posh accommodations and meals that cost more than the ones we provide to our service people. If you choose, you can have a-la-carte meals of foodstuffs you have never tasted before.

You have a right to the best health care in the world. You will be cured of all and any diseases we find on you or risk being sued or your case thrown out of court for “cruel and unusual punishment.” Such health care will be provided at U.S. Taxpayers’ expense.

You have the right to be heard on American Universities and Air America Radio denouncing the evils of the United States. You will be given standing ovations by the likes of Al Franken, Randy Rhodes, Ward Churchill, Jesse Jackson, Noam Chumsky and others. All travels’ cost, lodging and food will be paid for you at U.S. Taxpayers’ expense.

You have the right to be interviewed by Michael Moore and be a part in his next movie where he denounces and lies about The United States. You shall be paid the union scale and a producer and a manager will be provided to you at U.S. Taxpayers’ expense.

In the unlikely event that a jury finds your actions are so destructive that it deems you are guilty, the United States will provide you with all the means necessary to appeal such conviction. These means include: Keep paying for your lawyers, free websites where you can collect monies, Hollywood celebrities taking up for your cause, the fabrication of testimony, evidence and “witnesses” to be shown on the major Networks, Newspapers and Cable News and any help you deem necessary to go out free and kill more innocent people.

As decided by the US Supreme Court on June 29, 2006.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,431 Posts
SCOTUS just might be a terrorist organization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Innocent until proven guilty last time I checked.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,260 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
SammyIamToday said:
Innocent until proven guilty last time I checked.
You gonna have to explain the context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Miggy said:
You gonna have to explain the context.
Meaning no matter how these people were apprehended they need to be tried for something. Just because our legal system has hundreds of miles of red tape doesn't mean that it should suddenly disappear because these people are unsavory or not Americans (we're detaining them). That's a problem with the legal system itself and not the people being tried.

How can we expect people captured from our own troops to be treated well if we're just capturing whoever and sitting them in jail to rot? If they did something wrong, fry them, if they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, let them go. Only way to show that is to have a trial.

I just don't get how people can argue for rights like gun ownership and in the same breath denounce due process. They all go hand in hand to give everyone personal freedom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Does anyone really want the Government saying who is a terrorist and who isn't?? I for one don't trust the Government that much if at all. If you trust them that much maybe you need to read the Patroit Act and the Campaign Reform. The compare that to the Constitution and tell me if you trust the Government that much
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
318 Posts
This is a big load of BFreaking S!!!!

If it applies overseas as well.

We are fighting a WAR not playing friggin' Cops an Robbers!!!


But if you look at it it's just boils down to lawyers helping other lawyers line their pockets at the expense of national security and the lives of our soldiers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
BigEd63 said:
This is a big load of BFreaking S!!!!

If it applies overseas as well.

We are fighting a WAR not playing friggin' Cops an Robbers!!!


But if you look at it it's just boils down to lawyers helping other lawyers line their pockets at the expense of national security and the lives of our soldiers.
What it boils down to is how much you trust the leaders of this country and how much you believe in the Constitution.

With things like the Patroit Act all you would have to do is disagree with the war and the Government can lable you a terrorist.

The Government just lets over one million illegals a year walk into the country. The Senate wants to bottom line sell citizenships. I can't see how anyone can believe that the threat of terrorism is the real motivating factor for anything the Government is doing.

Anyone who thinks the Government is above using its power unjustly against the average American needs to study the real history of some of the leaders we have had in our history
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
BigEd63 said:
This is a big load of BFreaking S!!!!

If it applies overseas as well.

We are fighting a WAR not playing friggin' Cops an Robbers!!!


But if you look at it it's just boils down to lawyers helping other lawyers line their pockets at the expense of national security and the lives of our soldiers.
There are laws/treates to war that we are signatories on. Exploiting some so-called loophole by labeling a combatant something else is dishonorable at best. If we're going to champion personal freedom/rights we need to do it in all areas, not just 9/10.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,260 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
SammyIamToday said:
There are laws/treates to war that we are signatories on. Exploiting some so-called loophole by labeling a combatant something else is dishonorable at best. If we're going to champion personal freedom/rights we need to do it in all areas, not just 9/10.
But there is a problem: SCOTUS violated the laws and treaties you mentioned with their decission.

Check this article:

Supreme Court Strikes a Blow... for Terrorists
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Miggy said:
But there is a problem: SCOTUS violated the laws and treaties you mentioned with their decission.

Check this article:

Supreme Court Strikes a Blow... for Terrorists

We have to take the moral highground though. It doesn't matter what they violate, we have to do what's right. If we don't,we're not any better than they are.

I don't care if it's the most low-life children murdering rapist to ever exist in history. He would still deserve a fair trial before he's shot. If we start doing away with innocent before guilty, we're no better than any of the other tolitarian regimes we've opposed in the last 75 years. That doesn't mean that I support the 50 miles of loopholes and red tape in our legal system, that could be streamlined, but doing away with it in general is wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,752 Posts
"Oh, I'm sorry you couldn't hear me read you your rights because my gun "accidentally" discharged? Sir? Sir?".....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
I think we need to repatriate them… well at least the ones that will go to home countries that believe and use capital punishment. They don’t want to have to deal with terrorists ether.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,838 Posts
SammyIamToday said:
Meaning no matter how these people were apprehended they need to be tried for something. Just because our legal system has hundreds of miles of red tape doesn't mean that it should suddenly disappear because these people are unsavory or not Americans (we're detaining them). That's a problem with the legal system itself and not the people being tried.
Our Constitution has NO force of law outside our country. That is why these clowns are being held in Gitmo. They would be entitled to protection if on our soil. These BGs are subject to the UCMJ. That is also why SCOTUS went outside their bounds here.

How can we expect people captured from our own troops to be treated well if we're just capturing whoever and sitting them in jail to rot? If they did something wrong, fry them, if they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, let them go. Only way to show that is to have a trial.
Our soldiers aren't going to be treated well by ANY ENEMY, have you forgotten POWs from Vietnam, Korea, WW2? They were treated horribly. If we treated these guys like our soldiers have been/will be treated, they would be dead, de-capitated, burned, drug thru the streets, tortured (& I don't mean putting them in a pyramid pile naked)...etc...

I just don't get how people can argue for rights like gun ownership and in the same breath denounce due process. They all go hand in hand to give everyone personal freedom.
Do you think all the POWs we captured during any major war should all be tried in court? These POWs that are being held now should be dealt with one day, WHEN the war is over (I hope), not before then.

Don't take this as an attack, just a difference of opinion.

Most will agree, we should want to treat them fairly & expediously. However, this is not going to end tomorrow & WE DIDN'T START THIS! So I don't really care if it takes a while with these guys being locked up for the duration. I'll sleep better knowing they are behind bars, rather than trying to kill our soldiers (for me, immediate family members who are deployed in Iraq), or worse trying to sneak into the US & attacking innocents!

My opinion on fighting a war is make it as devastating & as short as possible. It is the same mentality we as CCW holders have. We are polite until it's time not to be. When the SHTF & we are required to respond, we want to be victorious as rapidly as possible.....BUT as soon as politics becomes a factor....everything gets botched up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,260 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
SammyIamToday said:
We have to take the moral highground though. It doesn't matter what they violate, we have to do what's right. If we don't,we're not any better than they are.

I don't care if it's the most low-life children murdering rapist to ever exist in history. He would still deserve a fair trial before he's shot. If we start doing away with innocent before guilty, we're no better than any of the other tolitarian regimes we've opposed in the last 75 years. That doesn't mean that I support the 50 miles of loopholes and red tape in our legal system, that could be streamlined, but doing away with it in general is wrong.
First, let me point out to you, once more, that this is WARFARE, not law enforcement. In War, you do not go around trying to aprehend suspect, you kill the enemy and, if some might happen to live, you will question them to obtain information so we can kill more of them and WIN the war.

The idea of applying some stupid notion of rights to declared enemies of the USA was tried before during the last administration with Zacarias Moussaoui with the results shown below.



People who share your "moral highground" prevented the FBI to do a proper invesigation on the poor misguided soul and blocked warnings from other FBI agents regarding a group of people like Mr. Moussaoui.

And a question, if you do believe what you say, what are you doing in this forum? According to your principles, if we use violence against criminals that attack us "we're not any better than they are."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
goawayfarm said:
Our soldiers aren't going to be treated well by ANY ENEMY, have you forgotten POWs from Vietnam, Korea, WW2? They were treated horribly. If we treated these guys like our soldiers have been/will be treated, they would be dead, de-capitated, burned, drug thru the streets, tortured (& I don't mean putting them in a pyramid pile naked)...etc...
I agree, but that still doesn't mean we should treat them badly. Whether or not they treat us like humans, we should treat them as such.


Do you think all the POWs we captured during any major war should all be tried in court? These POWs that are being held now should be dealt with one day, WHEN the war is over (I hope), not before then.
What's wrong with trying them now? Other war criminals have been tried in the past. There's no need to wait. Just a waste of money. This war is a far cry different from any other war we've fought, it might never end.

Most will agree, we should want to treat them fairly & expediously. However, this is not going to end tomorrow & WE DIDN'T START THIS! So I don't really care if it takes a while with these guys being locked up for the duration. I'll sleep better knowing they are behind bars, rather than trying to kill our soldiers (for me, immediate family members who are deployed in Iraq), or worse trying to sneak into the US & attacking innocents!
I'm not saying release these guys. I'm saying they deserve a trial. The idea that they get to sit in their little prisons, getting fed on my dollar all day, while nothing happens to them sits worse on my stomach than anything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Miggy said:
First, let me point out to you, once more, that this is WARFARE, not law enforcement. In War, you do not go around trying to aprehend suspect, you kill the enemy and, if some might happen to live, you will question them to obtain information so we can kill more of them and WIN the war.
Last time I checked you get lots of classes in the military on how to properly treat POW's. So, unless we've left the Geneva Convention and the Hague Accord as signatories we should act as such. I don't care how distasteful the enemies are, they deserve what we have agreed that they deserve.

The idea of applying some stupid notion of rights to declared enemies of the USA was tried before during the last administration with Zacarias Moussaoui with the results shown below.
Once again, as a country we're a signatory on treaties that gives them rights. If you want to spit all over that feel free, but I'd rather we do what we say we're going to do.

People who share your "moral highground" prevented the FBI to do a proper invesigation on the poor misguided soul and blocked warnings from other FBI agents regarding a group of people like Mr. Moussaoui.
Please, read the 9/11 commission report. The FBI/CIA/NSA was caught with their pants around their ankles. Or at least find an argument instead of linking in pictures of 9/11. I know what happened.


And a question, if you do believe what you say, what are you doing in this forum? According to your principles, if we use violence against criminals that attack us "we're not any better than they are."
What the hell is wrong with you? Believing in innocent before guilty is a big part of America's consitution and beliefs in personal freedom. The same reason that police officers can't beat people that they arrest. Using my rights to defend myself by carrying around a firearm isn't even the same ballpark, game, or sport as this issue. Why don't you sort your thoughts out before getting all emotional because our country was attacked.

And since freaking when did I mention that we can't fight back or attack them? Stop putting words in my mouth. All I said is that if we capture these people they need to be tried and then punished (if guilty) not to hug them and turn the other cheek. Reading comprehension of my posts please.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,260 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
SammyIamToday said:
Last time I checked you get lots of classes in the military on how to properly treat POW's. So, unless we've left the Geneva Convention and the Hague Accord as signatories we should act as such. I don't care how distasteful the enemies are, they deserve what we have agreed that they deserve.
Please do cite chapter and verse in GC and Hague regarding giving POW's a trial and then be released before the hostilities are over.
I went over GC III & GC IV and could only find that they should be properly fed and care at the same level as our troops and that they should be released at the end of hostilities whenever the POW's meet the guidelines which, in case you haven't noticed, the inmates at Gitmo do not but still are being treated as POW's. So, if anything, the US is going ABOVE international treaties.

SammyIamToday said:
Once again, as a country we're a signatory on treaties that gives them rights. If you want to spit all over that feel free, but I'd rather we do what we say we're going to do.
And as I stated above, we are going above what it was signed in the treatment of illegal combatants.

SammyIamToday said:
Please, read the 9/11 commission report. The FBI/CIA/NSA was caught with their pants around their ankles. Or at least find an argument instead of linking in pictures of 9/11. I know what happened.
The following are parts of the transcript of the 9/11 hearings.

"I think that there was at the time a very strictly enforced wall in the Justice Department between law enforcement and intelligence and that repeatedly, there are many statements from presidents and attorneys general and so forth that say that the first priority is bring these people to justice, protect the evidence, seal the evidence and so forth."

"The second core challenge was a legal issue that became a management challenge as well. Certain provisions of federal law had been interpreted to limit communication between agents conducting intelligence investigations and the criminal prosecution units of the Department of Justice. This was done so that the broad powers for gathering intelligence would not be seized upon by prosecutors trying to make a criminal case. The separation of intelligence from criminal investigations became known as the wall."

"Over time, the wall requirement came to be interpreted by the Justice Department, and particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as imposing an increasingly stringent barrier to communications between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors."

"The wall between criminal and intelligence investigation apparently caused agents to be less aggressive than they might otherwise have been in pursuing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, surveillance powers in counterterrorism investigations. Moreover, the FISA approval process involved multiple levels of review, which also discouraged agents from using such surveillance."

"Many agents also told us that the process for getting FISA packages approved was incredibly lengthy and inefficient. Several FBI agents added that, prior to 9/11, FISA-derived intelligence information was not fully exploited anyway but was collected primarily to justify continuing the surveillance."

"The FBI was hampered by an inability to develop an endgame. Its agents continued to gather intelligence with little hope that they would be able to make a criminal case or otherwise disrupt the operation. Agents were stymied by rules regarding the distinction between intelligence and criminal cases, in part due to the wall then in place between criminal and intelligence investigations, as described above."

"Throughout the 1990s, the FBI's counterterrorism efforts against international terrorist organizations included both intelligence and criminal investigations. The FBI's approach to investigations was case-specific, decentralized and geared toward prosecution."

SammyIamToday said:
What the hell is wrong with you? Believing in innocent before guilty is a big part of America's consitution and beliefs in personal freedom. The same reason that police officers can't beat people that they arrest. Using my rights to defend myself by carrying around a firearm isn't even the same ballpark, game, or sport as this issue. Why don't you sort your thoughts out before getting all emotional because our country was attacked.
Again, you seem to confuse Criminal matters with Warfare matters. If we are to follow what you believe, every American Soldier in the Iraqi and Afghani Theater of Operations should be brought inmediately home and prosecuted for murder since they did not attempted to arrest the poor terrorist or read them their Miranda Rights before taking those who surrendered or were too wounded to keep fighting. According to your misguided point of view, our Armed Forces as of now are Mass Murderers.

SammyIamToday said:
And since freaking when did I mention that we can't fight back or attack them? Stop putting words in my mouth. All I said is that if we capture these people they need to be tried and then punished (if guilty) not to hug them and turn the other cheek. Reading comprehension of my posts please.
Well Sir, let me ask you, since you are so intent on due process. Have warrants been issued for the arrest of the individual we are fighting? What are the charges? And since the Military is not LEO, why are they there? Why instead we are not sending the FBI to arrest them and bring them to trial?

Please stop confusing warfare with civilian criminal matters.

SammyIamToday said:
Or at least find an argument instead of linking in pictures of 9/11. I know what happened.
With all due respect, you seem to forget Sir.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
Gentlemen, enhance your calm. (Sorry I've been wanting to use that since I heard it in Demolition Man)

Hyperbole and personal attacks don't work. Fallacious arguments definitely don't work.

Please stick to the facts and put forth your positions without the personal attacks and hyperbole.

We can argue until the end of time about the details of 9/11, the Miami shoot out, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the death penalty, religion, what caliber is best for personal protection and whether or not the 1911 is the best handgun in the world.

True believers on all sides of those arguments will argue and not change their mind. I understand and recognize that this is a topic that engenders strong feelings. But it is fast approaching the edge. Bring it back from the edge or agree to disagree.:smoke23:
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top