If A Republican Had Promised This . . . What Would You Say?

sure Ive been paying attention, I just wanted to see if you ever decided to tell the entire story ...

While the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges, proponents said the legislation would codify court decisions finding the President does have the authority to declare "enemy combatants," as commander-in-chief and under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda and its allies. The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved.


and again, hell yes, I totally support detaining any SOB, FOR- FUCKING- EVER that is planning to kill innocent americans on our home soil ... anyone that doesnt is a mouth-breathing traitor/ communist

So you disapprove of probable cause, and the 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution? What criteria would the President use to determine if someone was a "potential terrorist"? What if the President was wrong? What would stop any President from using that language to silence opponents?

You are too ignorant to see the ramifications of your statement. This is the same reasoning used by Hitler and Stalin to promote "security" when all it did was allow them to silence enemies.

I support detaining anyone planning to kill innocent people, but not without judicial review, and the right to due process. That's why we have that system. This places much too much power in the hands of the executive.

So I am a traitor because I support the Constitution, and the rights to free speech, and due process, et.al.? You are truly a piece of work.

what if a Frog had wings?


said frog wouldnt bump his ass when he jumped


I never called you a traitor, you classified yourself ...pay attention

So, you're ok with no right to a lawyer, and imprisonment based on suspicion? As well as the other items mentioned. Just yes or no, it's simple, really.

While the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges

get it?


proponents said the legislation would codify court decisions finding the President does have the authority to declare "enemy combatants," as commander-in-chief and under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda and its allies.

so who was it that founded Home Land Security anyway?

the buck started here

After September 11, 2001, the Administration decided to detain certain individuals suspected of being members or agents of al Qaeda or the Taliban as enemy combatants and hold them indefinitely and incommunicado for the duration of the war on terror. The rationale behind this system of preventive detention is to incapacitate suspected terrorists, facilitate interrogation, and hold them when traditional criminal charges are not feasible for a variety of reasons. By employing an armed-conflict model that treats terrorists as “combatants,” the Bush Administration argues it can preventively detain terrorists until the end of hostilities, despite there being no foreseeable ending scenario to an amorphous war on terror. Furthermore, terrorists are automatically “unlawful” or “enemy” combatants and hence not entitled to protections as true prisoners of war; yet, under the Bush Administration’s approach, they also are not entitled to the legal protections afforded criminals. As law professor David Luban notes: “By selectively combining elements of the war model and elements of the law model, Washington is able to maximize its own ability to mobilize lethal force against terrorists while eliminating most traditional rights of a military adversary, as well as the rights of innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.”

citizen status be damned.


nice doing business with you COG.

I'll take that as a "yes". It's people like you who are allowing the tyrants to take control of America. It looks like you are in the majority. It's too bad. We are no longer the "land of the free and the home of the brave," rather we are the "land of the elite and home of the slave."

I apologize, Mr. Franklin. In the name of security we have given up liberty. As you predicted, we now have neither.

sure Ive been paying attention, I just wanted to see if you ever decided to tell the entire story ...

While the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges, proponents said the legislation would codify court decisions finding the President does have the authority to declare "enemy combatants," as commander-in-chief and under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda and its allies. The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved.


and again, hell yes, I totally support detaining any SOB, FOR- FUCKING- EVER that is planning to kill innocent americans on our home soil ... anyone that doesnt is a mouth-breathing traitor/ communist Originally Posted by CJ7

do you expect us to believe that, bo is a man who lies alot

bo is a man who lies alot Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

. . . frequently, often and perpetually.