Gingrich, Bachmann, Romney want the constitution to be void when fighting terror

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Tonight during the CNN National Security debate (11/22/2011), the candidates gave their input about discarding constitutional rights for those who have been accused of domestic terror.

    Gingrich, Bachmann, and Romney all are of the notion that terrorism is a special crime that the constitution need not apply to. They think that people accused of domestic terrorism should not be afforded rights whatsoever. They keep mentioning a division of the rule of law. Essentially Due Process would be dead as we know it for someone accused of domestic terrorism, according to these Fascists.


    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsQEJQyifsI[/ame]


    First Gingrich and Paul had their say. Newt Gingrich stresses that we should remain in fear for the rest of our lives. He wants a stronger Patriot Act, and system of justice that is not encumbered by the constitution.

    Ron Paul defends the Bill of Rights and says that liberty NEVER needs to be sacrificed to provide real security. He calls Gingrich out on supporting a Police State.
    ED MEESE III, (Fmr. U.S. Attorney General): At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United states have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists. Shouldn't we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act, so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?

    GINGRICH: Well I think that Attorney General Meese has raised a key point in that key distinctions the American people to recognize is the difference between National Security requirements, and criminal law requirements. I think its desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if its a matter of criminal law. But if you're trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they're trying to bring into an American city, I think you wanna use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence. The Patriot Act has clearly been a key part of that. And I think that looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives. This is not gonna end in the short run. And we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities.

    BLITZER: So Speaker, just to clarify, you would not change the Patriot Act?

    GINGRICH: No I would not change it. I'm not aware of any specific change it needs. And I'd look at strengthening it, because I think the dangers are literally that grave. And again, I've spent years studying this stuff. You start thinking about one nuclear weapon in one American city, and the scale of loss of life, and you ask yourself, "What should the president be capable of doing to stop that?" And you come up with a very different answer. Again, very sharp division. Criminal law, the government should be frankly on defense and you're innocent until be proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives.

    BLITZER: Congressman Paul, I suspect you disagree.

    PAUL: I do. I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic, because it undermines our liberty. I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally. Its a crime and we dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh. But why I really fear it, is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against, because our early founders were very clear. They said, "Don't be willing to sacrifice liberty for security." Today, it seems to easy that our government and our Congress are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill Of Rights!

    GINGRICH: Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That's the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don't want a law that says, "After we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you." I want a law that says, "You try to take out an American city, we're going stop you."

    PAUL: This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house, because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a Police State. So if you advocate the Police State, yes you can have safety and security. And you MIGHT prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people, and against our freedoms, and we throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. So don't do it so carelessly.
    Then Michele Bachmann chimed in. She supports the Patriot Act because of the existence of cell phones. She seems upset that the Underwear Bomber was read Miranda rights. She also believes that accused domestic terrorists should not be afforded due process.
    BACHMANN: We have to realize we are in a very different war, with very different techniques that are used for that war, and very different bad actors than we've had before. And the terrorists' motivations are very different. We can't forget that technology is completely different. When we were looking at prior laws, phones were wired into walls. That's not how it works any more. Today we deal with wireless functions. And we have to completely change the way we go about investigating. This is one thing we know about Barack Obama. He has essentially handed over our interrogation of terrorists to the ACLU. He's outsourced it to them. Our CIA has no ability to have any form of interrogation for terrorists. When the bomber, the attempted bomber over Detroit, the underwear bomber was intercepted, he was given Miranda warnings within 45 minutes. He was not an American citizen. We don't give Miranda warnings to terrorists and we don't read them their rights. They don't have rights.
    Lastly, Mitt Romney agreed with Gingrich. In his mind there is a clear distinction between crime and terror, and therefore we can obey the constitution for one and not the other. He advocates a "very different form of law" if you are accused of terrorism.
    ROMNEY: Lets come back to the issue that seems to be so confusing here. Congressman Paul talked about crime. Newt Gingrich is right. There are different categories here. There is crime, and there are rights that are afforded to American citizens, under our constitution, and those who are accused of crime. Then there is war, and the tool of war being used today in America and around the world is terror. There is a different body of law that relates to war. And for those that understand the difference between the two, they recognize that we need tools when war is waged domestically to assure that as President of the United States, you can fulfill your first responsibility, which is to protect the life, liberty, and property of American citizens, and defend them from foes domestic and foreign. And that means yes, we'll use the constitution and criminal law for those people who commit crimes. But those who commit war, and attack the United States, and pursue treason of various kinds, we will use instead a very different form of law, which is the law that is afforded to those who are fighting America.
     

    LPMan59

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 8, 2009
    5,560
    48
    South of Heaven
    i was very disappointed with the what parts of the debate i saw last night. from little gaffes such as Santorum calling Africa a country or Perry saying half of a trillion is 500 million, to the giant doozey that was the PATRIOT Act question.

    I almost fell out of my chair in disbelief as most of the candidates agreed that it needed to be "strengthened". I forget which, but one of them actually referenced Lincoln and approved of his wanton disregard for the SCOTUS during the civil war because the country "was at war". It was pretty clear that Santorum and Gingrich would have ZERO issue with interring American Muslims into camps in the name the War on Terror.

    I was equally disappointed in Mr. Paul, who seemed unable to articulate his views and came off as a crazy old man, though his ultra isolationist views may be just that.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Newt has been itching for more control since 2006

    Back in 2006, Newt said we need a serious debate about free speech. Also proposed a "Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism."

    These ideas are appalling.


    Gingrich: Free Speech Should Be Curtailed To Fight Terrorism
    "We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate," Mr. Gingrich said Monday night during a speech in New Hampshire. "We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat."

    "This is a serious, long-term war," the former speaker said, according an audio excerpt of his remarks made available yesterday by his office. "Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people."

    Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that these proposals would trigger "a serious debate about the First Amendment." He also said international law must be revised to address the exigencies posed by international terrorists.

    "We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous," he said.

    The former speaker also pointed approvingly to England, where suspects in terrorism cases can be detained for several weeks without charge.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    Acts of war change the equation. The term terrorism needs to be removed from the legal lexicon. And I'm fine with constitutional rights being subordinate to prisoner of war status and the subsequent rights that go with it.
     

    Boiled Owl

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 29, 2010
    721
    18
    Newton Co. !
    The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council (NSC) Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was used.

    You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

    You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

    You are six times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

    You are eight times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

    You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

    You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

    You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

    You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

    You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

    You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

    You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

    You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist attack.
     

    Boiled Owl

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 29, 2010
    721
    18
    Newton Co. !
    I guess I once again throw my pants on one leg at a time, jump in my car, look both ways and proceed with caution. And thank God every day that the Patriot Act is keeping me alive.
     

    LPMan59

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 8, 2009
    5,560
    48
    South of Heaven
    Acts of war change the equation. The term terrorism needs to be removed from the legal lexicon. And I'm fine with constitutional rights being subordinate to prisoner of war status and the subsequent rights that go with it.

    too bad no war has been declared.
     

    Disposable Heart

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 99.6%
    246   1   1
    Apr 18, 2008
    5,805
    99
    Greenfield, IN
    More of the "you can have your rights, but as long as it's on my terms" crap that has been popping up more and more. Heck, in Nazi Germany, you could have a pistol/rifle as long as you had the "license" or were rich. You could have free speech if you said the party line and didn't get out of hand. You could do what you wanted if you were an industrialist.

    Starting to see a trend here. But on the other hand, the other extreme, they want to use money not there, give everyone a chance (but a better chance if you are a minority, haven't earned the position or have nothing to offer society) and want to hold everything back for the basis of the "common good".

    I'm becoming frightened to be an American. I can see why the left thinks I am clinging to my guns, cause I am terrified of their plans, their hands wringing in delight over their dreams of raping my country. But only to be handing it over for police batons to smash the American dream if I hand it over to the right.
     

    Zoub

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 8, 2008
    5,220
    48
    Northern Edge, WI
    The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council (NSC) Estimates,
    I am willing to consider your perspective IF you amend your stats to include some of the following real world stuff:

    Chainsaws, pickup trucks, hunting, dogs, lawn mowers, kitchen knives, meat grinders, power tools, ex wives/GF's, wild animals/rabbies, encounters with angry Union members going door to door to collect signatures (I live in a very Liberal WI hood), lightining strikes/acts of God or nature.

    NAFTA was just a mental prep for the Homeland Security enema.
     

    Pocketman

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 11, 2010
    1,704
    36
    More disappointing crap from the circus. May as well bring Joe McCarthy and J. Edger Hoover back.
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,749
    113
    Michiana
    If Congress votes to fund a war then they have declared war whether they want to call it that or not.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 7, 2011
    2,380
    38
    Jeffersonville
    Ya know, because cell phones are such a game changer that fundamental god granted human rights should no longer be recognized.

    Some people are scary, so we should destroy the very principles our country is founded on... because someone might stuff a bomb in their underwear, ya know.


    I know they are attempting to come off as "hard on terrorists", but to me they just come off as weak on American values. We had all the information we needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks... we did not treat it as a serious threat... It was not a situation where "pesky human rights" got in the way...

    The college kids getting pepper sprayed in the streets seem to value American ideals to a higher degree than most of our GOP leaders *sigh* Taking the stance that the fundamental ideals of America should not always apply can make you "electable"? Then again, maybe that question is flawed... To win the general election, the GOP nominee is going to have to win over independents, and taking this type of stance on the key issues where they could have won them over will only secure a victory for Obama. Many independants feel that Obama turned his back when he signed the Patriot Act - and it was one of the key issues where an opponent could easily score widespread support. Sadly, it would seem running for the nomination may destroy some of our candidates chances in the primary.
     
    Last edited:

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    I'm becoming frightened to be an American. I can see why the left thinks I am clinging to my guns, cause I am terrified of their plans, their hands wringing in delight over their dreams of raping my country. But only to be handing it over for police batons to smash the American dream if I hand it over to the right.
    I am thinking the same thing. What's worse? Left or Right? Wealth redistribution or an Orwellian Police State?!!

    And the GOP wonders why we have to be scared into voting for their candidates
    Seriously. The GOP is becoming openly Fascist. Goose-stepping our way to utopian hopes of safety and security. This is madness.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Acts of war change the equation. The term terrorism needs to be removed from the legal lexicon. And I'm fine with constitutional rights being subordinate to prisoner of war status and the subsequent rights that go with it.
    So... what kind of things do you think a person should be accused of, before classifying them as a "Prisoner of War"?

    This is 100% about domestic issues, on our soil.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    84e506e2c3tution.jpg.jpg
     

    ViperJock

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Feb 28, 2011
    3,811
    48
    Fort Wayne-ish
    Too bad they still qualify as acts of war without a declaration of war.

    Tried to rep for this but I can't. "War on Terror." IS that not declared? Paul and Romney are both correct in the quoted segment.

    First Paul, No liberty needs to be sacrificed. Occassional pain is the price of freedom. Pain cause you were free to touch a hot oven, pain cause you lost everything in the stock market, pain cause you are too lazy to get a job, pain cause a person not wearing a govt ID neck collar with GPS and thought transmitter committed a crime against you.

    Second Romney, Foreign Terrorists are not criminals--they are enemy combatants. They can be killed without trial during combat (that includes carryiing explosives onto a plane). American born terrorists have rights under the constitution if they are in America. Once they leave and conduct terror operations whether those operations are support operations (Al Wacki and Dim Laden) or actual combat operations they are COMBATANTS.

    I even agree with Bachman for once that Underwear bomber didn't need a miranda. He falls into the category of enemy combatant and is now a POW and a war criminal (targeting civilians) I would prefere a military tribunal and a good old fashioned hanging. Or better yet, lets strap some C4 to his jock strap and send him back to al quaeda.
     
    Top Bottom