First acts of BO - Establish rights for terrorists?

[czydj]

I'm listening to the local news and I'm shocked and dismayed. One of the first acts by our new President is to strengthen the rights of terrorist and terror suspects. I can't believe this concern was on the top of his list. We are in for at least TWO very, very, very rocky years. God help us.

[Neville]

The problem is that, with the right spin (like Janet Renos "war on guns"), everybody can be a suspect.

[Bison]

Denying the rights of an accused is plain un-American. It was before W was around, it was when he was doing it, and it will continue to be after BHO is long gone. What Pres. Obama's order seeks to do is to return the US to its values in that regard. You cannot just hold someone indefinitely without charge. It is un-American. Plain and simple. If you think otherwise, I would suggest you read the Constitution, the highest law of our land and what all presidents swear to uphold.

If there is anything worth defending with all the weapons we all have, it is preventing the ability of the government to just declare that you are dangerous and lock you up without proving it in court before a jury of your peers. That is what our justice system is about. That is what America is about. That doesn't mean that I have sympathy for terrorists and it doesn't mean that the President does, either, regardless of his politics. It also doesn't mean that he is strengthening the "rights of terrorists." What it means is that we're willing to adhere to the rights of those we accuse. It also means that we believe in our ideals, the values of what it means to have the rule of law in America and not just take someone out to the desert and shoot them or decapitate them. It means that we're willing to not take short-cuts on our beliefs. America is a nation of laws. Supporting those laws, those values and beliefs is to be an American!

[NighthawkUSA]

I dare you to show me where in the constitution it specifically states that The United States must offer to Non Citizens the same rights afforded U.S. Citizens!
You may want to polish up on your Political Science. Not flaming anyone and if you are offended then oh well. I just have a problem with people adding to the constitution when they want support for their opinion. Everyone is entitled to such opinions and that is what makes America great. However, the constitution is for US citizens only.

[czydj]

Certainly availability of due process for foreign nationals is a valid discussion we can have someday.

HOWEVER, is it a topic or concern that has to occupy PBO's time on day 2 of his administration??? Given the state we find ourselves in, I'm insulted he is putting the rights of foreign murderers and cowards in front of the needs and concerns of the American people. Ya dig?

[Bison]

I dare you to show me where in the constitution it specifically states that The United States must offer to Non Citizens the same rights afforded U.S. Citizens!
You may want to polish up on your Political Science. Not flaming anyone and if you are offended then oh well. I just have a problem with people adding to the constitution when they want support for their opinion. Everyone is entitled to such opinions and that is what makes America great. However, the constitution is for US citizens only.

Dare accepted:

I posted that holding the accused without charge indefinitely is un-American and un-Constitutional. In other words, the right of habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution.

"We hold that Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us, Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause."

Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 2262 (2008).

Congress has not so acted.

[g5m]

I dare you to show me where in the constitution it specifically states that The United States must offer to Non Citizens the same rights afforded U.S. Citizens!
You may want to polish up on your Political Science. Not flaming anyone and if you are offended then oh well. I just have a problem with people adding to the constitution when they want support for their opinion. Everyone is entitled to such opinions and that is what makes America great. However, the constitution is for US citizens only.



Back about 1978 the Supreme Court said the Constitution was for everybody in this country. Citizen or not. It had to do with a lawsuit about aliens demonstrating against the Shah of Iran, IIRC.

[NighthawkUSA]

This still does not prove my point that The Constitution does not address foreign nationals! These responses are only quotes of opinions. We can argue all day but you know that is great as I hold you guys as comrades not enemies. You guys have a great day. My whole point being is that the constitution is always interpreted and not read And my opinion is that no foreign nationals should be afforded the same rights as US citizens. If the framers had intended it to be then they would have included such.

[variablebinary]

Shoot them on sight, or turn them over to their enemies for "trial".

Bringing them an American territory was stupid to begin with.

[Honu]

Denying the rights of an accused is plain un-American. It was before W was around, it was when he was doing it, and it will continue to be after BHO is long gone. What Pres. Obama's order seeks to do is to return the US to its values in that regard. You cannot just hold someone indefinitely without charge. It is un-American. Plain and simple. If you think otherwise, I would suggest you read the Constitution, the highest law of our land and what all presidents swear to uphold.


well the constitution in my eyes is for the U.S. people
written by and for them !!!

does not say and our lovely terrorist friends

so sorry other Americans disagree with your view that someone who is a terrorist has no rights just like criminals should loose theirs !!! a terrorist should never have them to begin with since they are not from our country and are trying to destroy our country

I suggest you read the constitution and point me to where it says to love and embrace and give rights to terrorists that are trying to destroy the country and the constitution and the american way of life

[Honu]

from what I saw true enemy soldiers who surrendered etc.. were treated well

those who hid amongst civilians and used them as shields and bomb carriers against there will in a sense illegal enemy combatants or terrorists are quite dif than normal enemy soldiers and they need to be treated dif than the others !!!!