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

[dross]

You guys need to understand a few things:

1. We don't really have any enemies
2. Our enemies are all inventions of the military industrial complex
3. Any enemies we have are a result of all the wrong we've done
4. We shouldn't kill our enemies
5. We should afford our enemies all the rights under the Constitution, the Genevea Conventions, parlimentary procedure, and the rules of golf.
6. Our enemies need not follow any rules at all
7. Once again, we don't really have any enemies, except perhaps Israel. Yes, Israel for sure.
8. If our enemies commit horrible atrocities and torture systematically and as part of a conscious plan, we're morally equivalent if some individual soldiers commit a few isolated crimes and we put them in prison for it.
9. We don't really have any enemies.
10. The enemies we're fighting are not as bad as the enemies we're not fighting.
11. We don't really have any enemies.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You do realize the Patriot Act is not targeted specifically at enemy combatants, but also at US citizens, right?

OOPS, sometimes we go too far :X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield

Circumventing the fourth amendment protections of US citizens under the guise of gathering intelligence on "enemy combatants" is a shady practice at best.

Maybe the government should take citizens firearms without due process also... I mean, the world is too dangerous to muddy the water by requiring the application of our legal process...

"That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted."

 

[rambone]

You guys need to understand a few things:

1. We don't really have any enemies
2. Our enemies are all inventions of the military industrial complex
3. Any enemies we have are a result of all the wrong we've done
4. We shouldn't kill our enemies
5. We should afford our enemies all the rights under the Constitution, the Genevea Conventions, parlimentary procedure, and the rules of golf.
6. Our enemies need not follow any rules at all
7. Once again, we don't really have any enemies, except perhaps Israel. Yes, Israel for sure.
8. If our enemies commit horrible atrocities and torture systematically and as part of a conscious plan, we're morally equivalent if some individual soldiers commit a few isolated crimes and we put them in prison for it.
9. We don't really have any enemies.
10. The enemies we're fighting are not as bad as the enemies we're not fighting.
11. We don't really have any enemies.

So... what is your opinion about the OP?

Do you think we should have an even stronger Patriot Act?

Do you believe, as Bachmann does, that accused domestic terrorists should not have "rights"?

Do you believe, as Gingrich does, that more laws and less freedom will keep us safe?

Do you believe, as Romney does, that the constitution need not apply to accused domestic terrorists?

 

[88GT]

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.

Until you start complaining about issues that happen overseas.

 

[rambone]

Until you start complaining about issues that happen overseas.

Whenever I raise a red flag about anything happening overseas, people say that its all about location. If its happening to foreigners overseas, they don't care. "Assassination? Torture? Wake me when it happens over here." So, a few weeks later, the oppressive War on Terror is about to target American citizens at home. So... anybody ready to admit that there is a serious problem here? This topic is the most sinister of anything I've heard in this election cycle. I thought more people would care. I bet if it was Barack Obama talking about suspending Americans' rights, more people would have something to say about it. This is like the days of Bush all over again. Republicans are primed and ready to trust the government again and defend the President.

I still would like to know what kind of "Act of War" a person would have to be accused of domestically, to sufficiently void out the Bill of Rights. Gingrich and Romney made it sound so cut and dry. Please, anyone. Humor me.

 

[RockofStrength]

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.

This I agree with. "terrorist" effectively becomes "kinda civilian so we can snoop around everyone's homes and put up cameras but also kinda military so we can ignore any manner of constitutional rights they may have". Either they are military threats, and should be dealt with as such, or they are civilians committing crimes and should be dealt with as such.

 

[bingley]

I still would like to know what kind of "Act of War" a person would have to be accused of domestically, to sufficiently void out the Bill of Rights. Gingrich and Romney made it sound so cut and dry. Please, anyone. Humor me.

If I told you, the terrorists would have already won. Better to keep this sort of stuff a secret from the citizenry, so we can charge the bad guys with whatever we like and waterboard a confession out of them!

 

[Arthur Dent]

So... what is your opinion about the OP?

Do you think we should have an even stronger Patriot Act?

Do you believe, as Bachmann does, that accused domestic terrorists should not have "rights"?

Do you believe, as Gingrich does, that more laws and less freedom will keep us safe?

Do you believe, as Romney does, that the constitution need not apply to accused domestic terrorists?

It's interesting that someone only needs to be accused. That sort of thing is supposed to only happen in communist countries.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

It's interesting that someone only needs to be accused. That sort of thing is supposed to only happen in communist countries.

And I am sure that many people in those communist countries regard the actions as justified, "because it keeps them safe".

 

[Arthur Dent]

And I am sure that many people in those communist countries regard the actions as justified, "because it keeps them safe".

They feel safe, alright.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

(snipped)
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...

(snipped)

This has been touched on before: We certainly did have "all the information we needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks", a fact which became evident ONLY after the attacks. There is no computer cursor that highlights the "relevant data" in intelligence gathering. Disparate data must be gathered and correlated and analyzed. Often the relevant information isn't put together until some bit of it enables analysts to "connect the dots". In fact, it was some laws and regulations enacted to "protect" us from our government that prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing the information that might have allowed someone to "connect those dots".

Rather than the provisions of the Patriot Act, the government could just declare Martial Law until the emergency is over and the situation has been resolved. That's a provision of law that goes 'way back in our history, too.

If anyone argues that we're going the "war on terror" all wrong, I won't say it's not true - government officials and politicians once again are failing to fight a war to the finish. In fact, they're refusing to look into the face of their declared enemy; just nibbling around the edges of the problem. But we haven't had another successful MAJOR act of terrorism on our soil since 9/11/2001; no malls attacked; no schools full of kids blown up; no more successful bombings - and it's not for lack of the bad guys advocating for them.

 

[rambone]

Rather than the provisions of the Patriot Act, the government could just declare Martial Law until the emergency is over and the situation has been resolved. That's a provision of law that goes 'way back in our history, too.

The "emergency" is never going to be over. Its called life. The world will never be a safe place, no matter how many of our rights the Republicans want to erase.

 

[Fletch]

You guys need to understand a few things:

1. We don't really have any enemies
2. Our enemies are all inventions of the military industrial complex
3. Any enemies we have are a result of all the wrong we've done
4. We shouldn't kill our enemies
5. We should afford our enemies all the rights under the Constitution, the Genevea Conventions, parlimentary procedure, and the rules of golf.
6. Our enemies need not follow any rules at all
7. Once again, we don't really have any enemies, except perhaps Israel. Yes, Israel for sure.
8. If our enemies commit horrible atrocities and torture systematically and as part of a conscious plan, we're morally equivalent if some individual soldiers commit a few isolated crimes and we put them in prison for it.
9. We don't really have any enemies.
10. The enemies we're fighting are not as bad as the enemies we're not fighting.
11. We don't really have any enemies.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[rambone]

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.

I still would like to know what kind of "Act of War" a person would have to be accused of domestically, to sufficiently void out the Bill of Rights. Gingrich and Romney made it sound so cut and dry. Please, anyone. Humor me.

I guess I will try to answer my own question. If we let Newt and his buddies have their way, the road to fascism will be paved to allow military involvement with everything from school shootings to internet posts.

It has only been a matter of months since Newt Gingrich said that the guy who runs the Wikileaks website should be hunted down and executed as an "enemy combatant."

You must be able to see how slippery this slope is. SWAT Teams are perfectly capable of dealing with criminals and violent people. We don't need martial law... and we don't need a backdoor around the constitution. Due Process must be preserved, and the military kept far away from civilian justice.

 

[Cygnus]

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Effin' Goldstien!

 

[Fletch]

I guess I will try to answer my own question. If we let Newt and his buddies have their way, the road to fascism will be paved to allow military involvement with everything from school shootings to internet posts.

It has only been a matter of months since Newt Gingrich said that the guy who runs the Wikileaks website should be hunted down and executed as an "enemy combatant."

You must be able to see how slippery this slope is. SWAT Teams are perfectly capable of dealing with criminals and violent people. We don't need martial law... and we don't need a backdoor around the constitution. Due Process must be preserved, and the military kept far away from civilian justice.

You forget that Republicans pray at the altar of Order. It is their highest ideal, and there is nothing that cannot or should not be sacrificed in pursuit of it.

 

[rambone]

Gingrich gets smacked down hard by one of the few remaining journalists in this country.

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

 

[rambone]

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.

What sort of activities should one be accused of before the Bill of Rights no longer applies during the investigation?