Supreme Lunacy

[lowprone]

The Supreme Court has given the prisoners in Gitmo the protection of OUR Constitution, are they insane???
The whole world must be rolling in the aisles, laughing at their folly, I fear for my country. God help us.:mad:

[Gutshot John]

Yeah...makes me want to puke.

So much for Heller. :rolleyes:

[Alpha Sierra]

Kill them all.

[sproc]

Try to look on the bright side. When [insert name of future evil, anti-gun president] is in power and all us gun owners are placed in similar detention camps, this ruling may come in handy.

[Business_Casual]

I expect the law of unintended consequences will come into play here. No one benefits from this - no one.

M_P

[Gutshot John]

I expect the law of unintended consequences will come into play here. No one benefits from this - no one.

M_P

Other than enemy aliens like AQ?

[Business_Casual]

Think it through.

M_P

[SV650Squid]

The Bills of Rights describes rights that every person is born with, they kind of do have the right to not be held w/out at least being charged for up to 6 years (in at least one case).

That being said, not taking prisoners in the first place would have been the likely best answer.

In addition, consider Obama being pres.

Now consider that he doesn't like all the people still clinging to their guns or religion.

He labels them all terrorists, and sends them to Gitmo.

They get held for years without charges.

Now what?

[tuff]

Yeap, that was a bad choice made by them on a 5 to 4 vote.... so in reality it could have gone eaither way...

[Gutshot John]

According to the laws of war enemy prisoners can be held indefinitely without trial for the duration of hostilities.

Gitmo detainees represent a microscopic minority of prisoners we've taken in the last 6 years.

Until AQ surrenders, so?

If we want to apply judicial standards to terrorists captured on the battlefield...are we going to release them on bail? are we going to allow them to appeal deportation if they are released?

AQ has won on two fronts:

1. They can use our liberty against us, thus inspiring more fear in the populace and destroying American liberty and what it stands for.

2. They now have legal protections while they go about trying to kill American citizens.

It's absurd.

[Nathan_Bell]

Isn't trying enemy combatants under the civil juridisction of one of the belligerents a war crime according to the GC?

[variablebinary]

Solution: Kill them on the battlefield and never bring them to the USA if captured

Problem solved...

[SV650Squid]

Solution: Kill them on the battlefield and never bring them to the USA if captured

Problem solved...

I'm pretty sure the majority of Soldiers will be doing this once they get wind of the decision.

[lowprone]

I hope so

[Gutshot John]

Solution: Kill them on the battlefield and never bring them to the USA if captured

Problem solved...

I'm not sure I'm happy with that solution though it may be inevitable.

We are different than they are. We are better. To become like they are is to prove them right.

The SCOTUS is so wrapped up in its own sophistry, that it cannot see the profound consequences this decision has...well beyond the courtroom. The gall to think they can control war.

I see the point of Scalia's dissent.

[Oscar 319]

The Supreme Court has given the prisoners in Gitmo the protection of OUR Constitution, are they insane???
The whole world must be rolling in the aisles, laughing at their folly, I fear for my country. God help us.:mad:

Please enjoy these videos of Jihadist's that will not be protected by OUR constitutional rights.

http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=237373

http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=156377

http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=330512

http://logo.cafepress.com/5/142414.3210475.JPG

[A62Rambler]

Let's tally up the info about the opposing force in a war:
You can't insult them.
You can't humiliate them.
You can't detain them wihtout due process. (Will soldiers be taught to give them the miranda warning?)
It is however still legal to shoot them, drop bombs on them, and otherwise obliterate them.

I think the supremes court sent a clear message. Kill them all! :D

[b_saan]

I expect the law of unintended consequences will come into play here. No one benefits from this - no one.

M_P

Unfortunately the consequences of this ruling are not unintended.

[Buckaroo]

Please enjoy these videos of Jihadist's that will not be protected by OUR constitutional rights.

Reminds me of Prairie Dog hunting.

[Leonidas]

A great victory for Liberty!

[Leonidas]

Isn't trying enemy combatants under the civil juridisction of one of the belligerents a war crime according to the GC?

The term "enemy combatants" was not invented until after the "war on terror"

[chadbag]

The term "enemy combatants" was not invented until after the "war on terror"

bzzt

wrong

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant>


SCOTUS used the term in 1942

[John_Wayne777]

The court has lost its mind.