Can anyone answer these questions about terrorists and rights?
I want to make this completely clear, I support Rand Paul; however, I can not support his position on this issue of Gitmo and that terrorists do not deserve the rights of protection under our constitution. Considering there was no official declaration of war these suspected terrorists are not subject to a military tribunal and should be tried in the US in court and given due process.
The above is covered by the 14th amendment.
This was not just in writing is was done LIVE by Rand Paul himself. link here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWd_kXVaFj0
I would really like Rand to come out and clarify his comments for the sake of our movement and so we can all move forward one way or another.
We have to understand that this is not exactly black and white but it is very close.
# 1 : Who has determined these people are terrorists considering they have never had a trial? The Government?
# 2 : Is it a crime to defend yourself against a mob of people that are trying to kill or illegally trying to detain or arrest you considering they are military acting on orders from an illegal war?
# 3 : Do any of us have the right to make claims that ANYONE does not deserve the rights of protection under our constitution?
# 4 : Do you even know what Gitmo is? If you are put in Gitmo you can be kept there forever WITHOUT a trial or the right to an attorney. Gitmo was built there specifically to bypass the rule of law in the constitution.
Here is my problem, we can not pick and choose parts of the bill of rights we support only when it suits our purpose, we must allow everyone YES everyone to be protected under the blanket of those rights or we, are no better than mob rule and no longer a nation of laws. We become the exact same type of people we are fighting against that are stripping our freedoms.
Enough for now I will write a much longer article about this later and I would appreciate anyones feedback or comments on this issue.
I gave my response very early in this thread, but
I want to voice an OPINION.
Just an opinion, which is mine, and I don't intend to claim it's any other people's opinion, or the DP's.
I think that the entire reason that the neocons are pushing hard for a military tribunal is because it is a closed doors affair, and the evidence and testimony is not entered into the record in a normal court of law.
This means that any evidence and testimony that might(would) put the neocons from the previous administration on the hot seat, and is even likely that some indictments may result from the evidence and testimony that comes out, and at least certainly a very bad PR result when people see the criminal activity done over the last 8 years, would not be used against them or made publicly known. And they could use the "national security blanket" that they've been hiding under for 8 years to continue to cover up their crimes.
So, the neocons want this tribunal to cover their own a$$es, so that they don't get indicted, and to ensure nobody hears that they've been up to their necks in criminal activity over the last 8 years.
To the neocons, this has nothing to do with the "rights of the suspects". They don't give diddly-squat about the suspects.
They are promoting this tribunal to save their own skins, to keep themselves out of the slammer.
The push for a "tribunal" is all about protecting the neocons, and nothing else.
My initial reaction to the issue of a
criminal trial was great now maybe we will get some discovery about the role of our government. As I have watched the outcry of those supporting military tribunals including Rand Paul, I have become more desirous of seeing a criminal trial for the suspects of 9/11. As supporters of liberty, we must remember that if you give up any of your liberty, you risk losing it the next time a controversial issues arises.
Great post. Certain rights
Great post. Certain rights are unalienable, meaning they exist whether or not a government says they exist.
I am just a fool
But it seems to me that the Founders must have some experience with type of stuff. What did they do when the Indians came and scalped people or did human sacrifices with their white asses. Did they get a military hearing or did they get a civil one?
I am just a fool
But it seems to me that the Founders must have some experience with type of stuff. What did they do when the Indians came and scalped people or did human sacrifices with their white asses. Did they get a military hearing or did they get a civil one?
military tribunals should
military tribunals should never be used EVER. They shouldnt even exist. Everybody has certain unalienable rights endowed to them by their creator. Our rights dont come from the constitution.
All good arguments but...
it seems to me that if you're upset about what Rand Paul said and are questioning whether he is your 100% ideal candidate, then I think you should consider two fundamental things:
1) Would you rather vote for Rand Paul who has many more philosophical and political ideals that you identify with,
or
2) Would you rather vote for the people running against him who are pretty much the status quo/establishment
If I could vote in Kentucky, I know which one I would choose.
But but but BUTT!
1) Rand Paul can only represent Rand Paul's philosophical and political ideas, not anyone else's. If yours differ, well, too bad for you.
2) STRAWMAN!!! It's either Rand Paul of 'the other guy(s)'. How about no? How about no thanks, I choose none of them?
The way people continue to make compromise after compromise it's absolutely no surprise at all that the people raping you daily continue to do so. Hell, you people practically beg for it. Actually, it's not practically, you do beg for it.
Keep compromising. Your masters love it when you do.
I respect your opinion
but that is the republican argument for them. "we are not as bad as the other guy". Sheep following that argument got us to this point.
Terrorists, POW's or "Enemy Combatants"
It is the interest of full disclosure, I believe the attack on Sept. 11th was an inside job. My views are irrelevant, however. I would have the same opinion if I though those 19 guys did the job. I haven't given Rand Paul any money and don't intend to. I do think he is an honest person.
If we are war (and I don't think we are), those people in Gitmo should be POW's and be treated accordingly. If they are terrorists that committed an act on American soil, they are criminal defendants in that jurisdiction. The Constitution does not distinguish between citizen and non-citizens when it comes to the rights of defendants. They are the accused. No amount of yelling by neocons can make them guilty. They are presumed innocent. This whole enemy combatant doctrine was conjured up to avoid the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
Anyone who fights against the US military while they are in there own country can't really be considered terrorists. And most of them aren't even POW's. If a foreign army decided it was going to liberate the US, and Americans fought back, would you consider them terrorists?
There is no declaration of War, therefore the war is illegal. It follows that everything the military is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is illegal. I don't care if Rand Paul is not a zero government libertarian like me. He claims to be a Constitutionalist. I don't think that it is too much to hold his feet to the fire when he deviates from his stated principles. That Trey guy is trying to intimate that supporting trials is left-wing because the Obama administration is doing it. Does that mean that everything Obama does can be called left-wing and opposing it would be correct? Why is supporting the Constitution left-wing?
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are limitations on
government.
So if government does not need to respect its limitations if they call someone a terrorist, then you ultimately have no protection; if they can make an exception to their limitations for some, then they can make an exception for you. Already all they need do is deem you a terrorist and they can use unlimited power against you.
If Rand Paul thinks you can just label someone a terrorist and then take away the limitations on the federal government, then he has not earned the credentials to run under the banner of freedom.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
The Constitution gives powers to a non-existent government
for specific enumerated functions by a free people with unlimited freedom and unalienable rights....through their elected representatives. The Bill of Rights only served to reiterate/enumerate existing rights and liberties of Americans that the government in no way was to infringe upon...and the 9th Amendment stated that just because we listed a few does not mean that those we didn't list are any less important or can be infringed upon either...WE are a Free People...
But Rand Paul DIDN"T say that
YOU said he said that. They still have the option of military tribunal, I see you forgot to mention that. Even our own military can be tried by non civilian courts. The Constitution does not cover this, just as long as there is a justice system to handle these matters. So what is everyone's beef with a military tribunal?
Are the "terrorists" civilian or in a military.
You say that our own military can be tried by non civilian courts. If these detainees were in the US military I would agree with you. If they were in another countries military, wouldn't they be prisoners of war? If they were not in another countries military, and not in the US military, then they must be civilians, subject to civil law, not military law.
An to be precise I did not put any words in Rand Paul's mouth. All I said was, "If Rand Paul thinks you can just label someone a terrorist and then take away the limitations on the federal government, then he has not earned the credentials to run under the banner of freedom". If he does not think that then the statement does not apply to him which is why the first word in my statement was "If".
So Miss Ralls, I think the beef with the use of a military tribunal is either that detainees are civilians, subject to civil law and the Constitutional provisions, or prisoners of war (undeclared) in which case they should not be prosecuted at all.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
Well stated
Well stated Henry.
www.retakecongress.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
The 14th amendment covers
The 14th amendment covers this very clearly.
www.retakecongress.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
Because the people are being
Because the people are being accused as terrorists. We don't know whether they are guilty until there is a trial - we assume them to be innocent. A military tribunal does not have to follow the same procedures as a civil trial. They have a right to trial by jury.
A military tribunal is for reprimanding US military personnel not to try criminals.
Exactly.www.retakecongress.c
Exactly, accused is the key word.
www.retakecongress.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
The government is clever
KSM is not a US citizen and not a prisoner of war , he is NOT to benefit from the right provided US citizens in the Constitution. He is NOT eligible to be tried by the military as there is NO declaration of war. The government cleverly created a limbo situation. The question is, how do we fix it?
A lot of observers feel that military tribs will let the guy go. A civilian court, Bush appointed prosecutors, and Bush appointed judges will guarantee, death or life imprisonment. It didn't take a crime to convict Don Siegelman, the players were already in place.
No Sandra, It makes no
No Sandra, It makes no difference if he is a US citizen or not, The constitution provides no rights at all, it prohibits the Government from infringing on any of the rights listed in the bill of rights. Specifically the 14th amendment, please look it up, it protects ALL people not just US citizens.
There is no limbo situation at all. he is accused of a crime and has the right to a fair trial and due process under law PROTECTED by the constitution and the bill of rights.
www.retakecongress.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
The US Constitution does not provide rights....
Rights are unalienble and pre exist the US Constitution....
Indeed! Yet I've been seeing
Indeed! Yet I've been seeing a lot of post saying the Constitution gives me this right and gives me that right, yet they forget it's supposed to protect your rights, not give you any.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of PRINCIPLES is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of VOTES is no virtue!"-My edit
Beautiful!
:)
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
All persons have rights....
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." -Declaration of Independence -Ist official document of the United States of America....
These persons have the right to have their charges presented to them to know their charges, they have the right to be tried, they have the right to a lawyer, they have a right to a speedy trial, they have the right to confront their accusers and to cross examine, they have the right to remain silent and not have their silence be used against them, they have the right to present witnesses, ...these rights are unalienable....
If they have committed these crimes, they should be tried, if guilty convicted and if convicted punished….
From my understanding,
it's a unilateral Executive Branch decision,ultimately resting with the President.
I don't think that there are any limitations, or any review.
What he says, swings the entire power of the police state or military into action against whomever he names.
I just spotted it
THANK YOU. My husband gets just FUMING whenever he here's them called "terrorists" or even "detainees." They are SUSPECTS, and they were called under suspicion on VERY flimsy evidence.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
some of these people have
some of these people have been there for over 8 years and have not been tried nor had a chance to speak to an attorney.
www.retakecongress.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
Hmm... no one wants to
Hmm... no one wants to clarify this? We are just going to ignore important questions because they may not be popular with any of our liberty candidates?
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
Great point
The principles of the constitution and the declaration of independence apply to every human being not just American citizens. It is one thing to take a life without a warrant or trial in the heat of a battle but once someone becomes a prisoner based on an assumption that they committed an act previous to a war they have rights, including the right to trial by jury.
Every person who has been detained for supposedly being involved in 911 or whatever has the right to a civil trial in the state where the act occurred.
Now, it may be argued that some of those prisoners are being detained until the "war" is over so that they don't rejoin the ranks of the Taliban or whatever the name of the opposition is - that is fine. I don't really see the point in detaining opposition soldiers in order to try them by tribunal or trial. If the punishment is death, you might as well have killed them rather than detained; if it isn't, what are you punishing them for? "you are being put in jail for 10 years because you are guilty of defending your country from the US military." Makes no sense to say that - of course the people of Afghanistan are going to try to prevent the US military from occupying their country, that is their responsibility as citizens of that nation.
I don't completely understand Rands position though I heard him comment. If he is claiming that terror suspects should be tried by military tribunals, he is incorrect as far as the constitution is concerned. Is he saying that just to appeal to republicans? I don't know.
We can not afford to be
We can not afford to be afraid to question our liberty candidates! Just because someone claims they stand for something doesn't mean they actually will keep that promise. www.retakecongress.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com