Kansas GOP lawmakers are helping lead efforts to bar Guantanamo Bay detainees from being relocated to the United States. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, offered an amendment last week to block the transfer of detainees. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., told Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a hearing this month, “Please not at Leavenworth. This is a hot topic in my state.” Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., appears in a fearmongering video produced by the Senate Republicans, in which he says sternly, “Moving those terrorists to Kansas? Not. On. My. Watch.” He also gave a floor speech in the Senate last week in which he threatened to keep the Senate tied up in knots “if someone gets the bright idea of moving these prisoners to Kansas.”
There may be legitimate logistical or security concerns about having detainees at a particular facility, such as Fort Leavenworth. But as Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution observed, “Members of Congress are acting as if Gitmo detainees are some evil combination of Chuck Norris and Harry Houdini, likely to escape into the countryside and wreak havoc.” Stephen Stromberg of the Washington Post also noted how several terrorists are already in U.S. prisons, and the nearby communities are still intact. And the Chicago Tribune editorialized: “Here’s our prediction: The Pentagon will eventually move these inmates to detention facilities here in the United States. Some folks will grouse. Then the grousers will go back to living their normal lives.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
102 Comments
I can’t remember … why is the U.S. trying to move these people from the Guantanomo Bay location on east end of Cuba?
#2: I think Senators Brownback and Roberts are pandering to Kansans by objecting to moving these prisoners to a prison in Leavenworth. Leavenworth has four or five prisons so the citizens there are probably the best trained in the U.S. for handling prisoners.
From reading about the issue, I presume the Gitmo prisoners would be placed in either the high walled Federal prison just west of the Army’s Ft. Leavenworth OR in the Army’s military detention barracks on the Ft. Leavenworth “campus.”
Personally I believe Kansas and the Leavenworth federal prison system is well qualified to handle these prisoners. Its possible a new detention building might have to be constructed. Of course, the primary need is to establish an appropriate court system to quickly deal with the legal reasons for holding Gitmo prisoners.
The prisoners will be in prison, just like those who were captured after the first WTC bombing. Other terrorists in prison are Terry Nichols and Eric Rudolph.
What is not understood by the politicians is that the prisoners will be in prison. Locking them up doesn’t mean they are being set free, that’s the opposite. I don’t know why the Kansas Republicans in Congress haven’t grasped this concept.
Or is it they think Kansans are so incompetent that they can’t hold some inmates in the prison? If that’s the case it’s best to shut them down. I say bring them in, it provides more revenue for the state.
Your Sunday funnies –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e6GNs-A3A4
(Sam on prisons.)
What’s the point of moving them?
That a nice warm sunny location.
Is one place better than another if in prison, is the food better, the recreational opportunities, the chance to influence other inmates to hate the U.S.
Leave them there, we don’t want them in the U.S., if they escape they are in Cuba not here.
“Boxlock20″ slurs the people who run prisons inn Leavenworth County, the keeps of murderers, thugs, and thieves.
I think the last escape was engineered by the Dog Lady at the Lansing facility. She wasn’t a professional corrections officer and turned out to be certifiably crazy.
You’ve got Dennis Rader living the next county over and that doesn’t seem to bother you. Do you CONs quiver through every night because — HORRORS!!! the Carr brothers are incarcerated within state lines.
Yellow-spined ninneys.
The federal prisons in Leavenworth haven’t had an escape in… how long?
It’s just another silly NIMBY tactic from the CONs and it’s typically absurd.
So, of course, it’s a viable issue for Kansas Republic Party partisans.
This is just NIMBYism on a Federal level. Tiahrt, Roberts, and Brownback are making Kansans out to be a bunch of whiny chicken-shiats.
Kansans have always risen to the challenge in the past and I have no doubt that Kansans will rise to the challenge again if it is determined that Leavenworth is the proper place to house these detainees.
At the height of WWII, 5,000 German POWs were kept at Camp Concordia in far less secure conditions than present-day Leavenworth.
http://www.kansasphototour.com/concordia.htm
The Monkey rattles on and on.
Answer my question….what’s the point in moving them at all?
How many of the “suspects” rounded up from villages across Iraq and Afghanistan are actually “terrorists”? How many are just villagers who happened to be in their homes when we swept through?
JWink
Posted May 10, 2009 at 6:24 am | Permalink
I can’t remember … why is the U.S. trying to move these people from the Guantanomo Bay location on east end of Cuba?
==========================
It’s simple.
So the bleeding heart side of the ACLU can divide and conquer by setting circumstances for agenda based legal decisions on individual prisoners. In Guantanamo, it’s not so easy.
bth,
Very probably….NONE!
Ah….Reg., but of course.
And we get to pay for all of the ACLU’s games as well.
Are you guys trying to tell us that these imported murderers are worse criminals than our own homegrown American killers? Where’s your sense of patriotism, your national pride, man?
#
Boxlock20
Posted May 10, 2009 at 9:21 am | Permalink
bth,
Very probably….NONE!
=================================================
Really?
—————————————-
“They fed them well. The Pakistani tribesmen slaughtered a sheep in honor of their guests, Arabs and Chinese Muslims famished from fleeing U.S. bombing in the Afghan mountains. But their hosts had ulterior motives: to sell them to the Americans, said the men who are now prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified before military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.
A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8049868/
———————————————-
Just another issue to oppose Obama on. I didn’t know that the most American thing to do, was to root for your President to fail.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/?p=68600
#
Barnie
Posted May 10, 2009 at 9:44 am | Permalink
Just another issue to oppose Obama on. I didn’t know that the most American thing to do, was to root for your President to fail.
____________________________
Just one more reason why Republicanism as a brand, is dead.
The last season of Gitmo Baywatch on the Daily Show, couldn’t have put this whole issue into better perspective. Watch that, then the argument is over.
Kansans can’t handle thes Super Villans!
As Nathaniel points out Guantanomo has been deemed a “legal free zone” in a sense.
Being an accused terrorist is liken to being an accused child molester, for the most part there need not be any right proof. The simple accusing is enough to convince the general public that the accused is what they are accused of. When thinking of the terror accused the general assumption is they were all captured on the battlefield. With gun, bomb or WMD in hand.
The problem is that some were simply turned in, for money, to name some names, what have you.
Another problem is the factor of their capture and detention has fed into the perceived image they are told is the United States. So after being held with no legal rights or foreseeable way out. They if not before being detained will now believe they have a just cause to fight the U.S.
Guantanomo is tainted, like the restaurant that is reported to have been found a cockroach in the kitchen.
Even if the report is a single incident, everyone wants to stay away from it. Though unlike what is said it is U.S. soil and not some foreign country and the detainees have the same rights or procedural right as they would in Kansas. There lies the problem where the likening comes in between terror suspects and Molester suspects. When there is a detailed exam of the evidence, there may not be proof or real evidence that withstands the exam of a legal court. Then what? To release them would seem to the general public that a terrorist or a molester has been released on nothing more then a technicality. It would not mean that the change was not true and they are not guilty. There are just some crimes that there are no perceived not guilty of.
In this country where there is a phobic fear of the terrorists, there is not belief that someone once accused could be innocent.
Boxlock20
Posted May 10, 2009 at 9:02 am | Permalink
The Monkey rattles on and on.
Answer my question….what’s the point in moving them at all?
—
The point is, they are prisoners that were rounded up on George W. Bush’s watch and now the US is responsible for them. We now own the problem, courtesy of Bush and Gang.
If you believe in law and order, like you rant and rave about, then why not bring them to Ft. Leavenworth and really keep an eye on these evil people?
Or are you one of those people that want law and order but not in your own backyard?
Typical Republican – they cause the problem and then whine like babies when the problem comes to their front door to stay.
Or, let’s just admit it Boxlockie, you’re too scared?
Boxlock20
Posted May 10, 2009 at 9:22 am | Permalink
Ah….Reg., but of course.
And we get to pay for all of the ACLU’s games as well.
–
Hey, I remember Rush used the ACLU to get his fat butt out of all that nasty Oxy trouble.
Or do you consider that a good reason to pay for the ACLU games?
“He also gave a floor speech in the Senate last week in which he threatened to keep the Senate tied up in knots”
LOL
wow
that’s a very scary politican from kansas.
big public relations announcement from another powerless kansas boy.
As it happens the subject of this topic is on CSPAN now, I have been watching it and a couple of things about Tiahrt and the amendment. First it was pointed out several times that he was bring it up in a committee that has nothing to do or has the jurisdiction over the issue.
Second is the argument he and other gave, that these detainees are plotting to kill innocent Americans.
So their idea is that they should not be allowed within the U.S. and be sent to some foreign country where they do not have any ill intent. And it would either be the duty of that foreign country or we have to deal with the question of that country’s self-rule and us watching on those detainees released to them.
Hum? Which would be better to be able to track and control those wanting to kill us or to let someone that has no interest in whether they kill us or not track and control them? It would seem that Tiahrt really did not think this one out!
Eric Rudolph is not a terrorist. Those who have killed babykilling abortionists have done so to protect the innocent. People use force everyday to protect the innocent and no one has a problem with it, except when it comes to protecting unborn human beings, then they go ballistic. It’s very simple, the unborn deserve the same protection as the born. Born people are protected with force quite often. Force that you would be glad if it was to protect your children against a murderer. Force that you yourself might use to protect your own children from being murdered. The unborn deserve the same protection.
Rev? What did bombing the Olympics have to do with abortion? even if one accepts your premise that killing to save lives isn’t wrong? Rudolph is still a terrorist
We have plenty of terrorists locked up in prisons now why should the gitmo ones be any different?
I think the Ft. Leavenworth they are talking about, is the actual Military prison. There is another Ft. Leavenworth that is a minimum to mid security level public prison. I don’t think Kansas really has a say, on whether the military wants to transfer terrorist prisoners, to another military prison. There is a bit of confusion on this issue.
Ben is correct. Calling the Gitmo detainees “terrorists”–as if this has been factually determined by anyone–is asinine. Holding and torturing people in isolation for years does not magically turn them into “terrorists,” no matter how many times Bushies made this badly unsupported assertion.
Out of the approximately 775 detainees captured since 2002, 525–over two-thirds–were released under Bush, without ever being charged with anything, and without so much as an apology.
http://closegitmo.com/assets/gitmo_factsheet.pdf
Putting the remaining detainees in prison would be staggeringly inappropriate, as they, too, have not been convicted of anything. Hell, the Gitmo incarceration regime was so mindless that it’s come out that many of the detentions wouldn’t have even met the relatively lenient standard (for arrest) of probable cause (and don’t go off about battlefield law–Gitmo is thousands of miles away from any battlefield).
Hold them in holding facilities. Military brigs should be sufficient. And give them fair trials: all of them.
The only potential problem is those who were captured because the leadership of a particular country or province wanted to get rid of them–and won’t take them back, at least without torturing or killing them. If such persons can be conclusively shown innocent of wrongdoing, they should be granted political asylum.
It’s the least we can do.
Rev,
“Eric Rudolph is not a terrorist. Those who have killed babykilling abortionists have done so to protect the innocent.”
Okay, how about those who kill an invader and occupier of their country who kills innocent civilian women and children and calls it collateral damage, and tortures others on speculation or just for fun? What it that invader is American? What if it’s Jewish? Are those defending their homes “terrorists?” What if the enemy is more insidious and sells porn and junk food and and drug-inspired music to your kids, as our businesses insist they have the right to do in the middle-east? Are the people protecting their children from filth “terrorists?”
You seem to be saying they aren’t. How ’bout it? Or is it just your issues and religion that are worth defending?
Rev. Spitz is one of those Army of God types. No seriously, he runs the Army of God website and was on the Army of God HBO documentary. So in his mind the only “terrorists” are the ones he wants to blow up or murder. No surprise he’s a friend of Troy Newman.
Middle easterners want to be carefull about their praying position in american prisons.
I think the issue is that assuming some are let go, and some do time, they will eventually be released. To where? In what state? On who’s welfare rolls?
If it were me, I’d hold a military tribunal. Guilty or not guilty. Then put them all on a C-130 over Afgahnistan (or where ever we found them.) Static-line parachute them out; the not-guilty get real parachutes, the guilty ones get Kurans wrapped in toilet paper. Done.
I think many of them are just political prisoners, something the U.S. has always taken a position against.
Political prisoners because of the tribal politics of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Hard,
“Middle easterners want to be carefull about their praying position in american prisons.”
Oh we trust you to be behind them all the way.
This is just one example of Obama’s short-sighting thinking. He makes these big pronouncements to sound good and wonderful, rushes legislation through his nodding head congress – and then America suffers the consequences.
Leap froggy.
Just put them back in front of the libraries and day care centers they were kidnapped from……
Problem solved…..
If anyone thinks the debate, security concern, or problem is in the risk of “escape” you entirely miss the point.
“Mr_Kia” declares –
“If anyone thinks the debate, security concern, or problem is in the risk of “escape” you entirely miss the point.”
So what’s “the point?”
We’re looking for specifics here.
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 11, 2009 at 11:57 am | Permalink
For starters, the prisoners are enemy combatants, could also be termed as “prisoners of war”. They have no place in the US Justice system. Bad precedent.
“Mr_Kia” tries –
“…the prisoners are enemy combatants, could also be termed as “prisoners of war”. “
And where is the “war?”
If they are “prisoners of war,” their rights are covered under the Geneva Conventions.
You remember the Geneva Conventions, don’t ya? The basis for the United States hanging Japanese soldiers for… water-boarding?
“They have no place in the US Justice system.”
Funny how Omar Abdul-Rahman is cooling his heals in the pokey for the rest of his life, after being prosecuted with all constitutional rights in place, as a result of his attack on the WTC in 1993.
Where’s Osama bin Laden, after 4,500 American deaths thanks to Shrub’s “War” on Terror?
Funny how you CONs are oblivious to realizing — now that George WMD Bush negated the right of habeas corpus — the “tyrant” Obama was handed the right to round you up and put you in a place where you’re the “Blind Shiek’s” girlfriend for no reason at all.
Moving the terrorists seems like nothing more than a political waste of money to make LIBs somehow FEEL better.
Ant,
“Moving the terrorists seems like nothing more than a political waste of money to make LIBs somehow FEEL better.”
No, it’s one more necessity to take our country back from the dishonest, illegal, unconstitutional bushco regime that the cons rolled in like hogs in mud!
No, it’s one more necessity to take our country back from the dishonest, illegal, unconstitutional bushco regime that the cons rolled in like hogs in mud!
===========================================
How is moving terrorists from one prison to another solving that?
Jed?
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 11, 2009 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
Funny how Omar Abdul-Rahman is cooling his heals in the pokey for the rest of his life, after being prosecuted with all constitutional rights in place, as a result of his attack on the WTC in 1993.
–Federal prosecution was the choice of the administration in power at that time versus a military response. Treating it as what I suppose would be described as an act of domestic terror vs. an act of war. I believe the bombings of US Embassy’s, the USS Cole and 9/11 prove this choice to be a mistake.
Why a man admitted to the United States on a tourist visa despite being on a terrorist watch list has “Constituitional Rights” is beyond me.
I’m not going to dignify the comparing of our techniques with that of the Japanese army in WWII with a response. I’m guessing you don’t have any relatives that served in the Pacific.
Ant,
“How is moving terrorists from one prison to another solving that?”
Because the prison at gitmo was placed there for no other reason than to attempt to circumvent our judicial process while bushco broke international law.
By the way, they aren’t terrorists until they’ve been convicted of terrorism (something about innocent until proven guilty?), and bushco didn’t bring them to trial because he knew he couldn’t convict them under rule of law and still torture them. Way too much daylight in our prison system for that!
Moving the prisoners here or releasing them is one step in restoring our nation to law. Bushco took us a long way down.
Jed,
So do you think U.S. civil law should apply to our enemies?
Jed
Posted May 11, 2009 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
By the way, they aren’t terrorists until they’ve been convicted of terrorism (something about innocent until proven guilty?)
—————————————————-
So then they aren’t terrorists until they have committed an act of terror correct?
That’s sure keeps us safe.
Because the prison at gitmo was placed there for no other reason than to attempt to circumvent our judicial process while bushco broke international law.
======================
Wrong.
The Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp is a prison operated by Joint Task Force Guantánamo of the United States government since 1987 in Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, which is on the shore of Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.-WIKI
Ant,
“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.”
You’ll notice that it says “all men,” not all “just US citizens,” and they are endowed with those rights by their creator, not George W. There really is such a thing as human rights.
That’s simply mind boggling.
People who’s “happiness” includes plots to strap bombs to themselves (at the least) in an effort to meet 72 Treky/Dungeons & Dragons/Chess Club members (Family Guy reference) in heaven should be allowed to do so because it is their Human/Constituitional right.
Jed
Posted May 11, 2009 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
===============================================
Jed,
Does our Bill of Rights and Constitution also apply on the battle field?
Jed
I’m not sure our Soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq, being forced to wake up a Judge in the USA to get a search warrant to search a house in the middle of battle is a smart idea.
Ant,
Unless I missed something, Gitmo isn’t a battlefield. And human rights, last I heard, apply everywhere.
Jed,
You cited OUR Declaration of Independence as if it applied to everyone.
Kia,
“That’s simply mind boggling.”
Sorry your mind is so boggled by something as simple as the Declaration of Independence. Something tells me it was already half way to boggled anyway. Now, either you are an American, and honor the principles set forth by our Founding Fathers, or you aren’t. If you aren’t I’m sure you can find a nice desert island somewhere far away to be the king of to your heart’s content. Go for it!
last I heard, apply everywhere.
=================================
Jed,
You don’t know much about Syria, Iran, Kenya, etc…Do ya?
Should we invade them to stop the atrocities?
We say human rights apply to everyone and are protected by the USA, right?
Or should we just site here looking like hypocrites?
We could sit too…
Ant,
“You cited OUR Declaration of Independence as if it applied to everyone.”
Try reading it sometime. It SAYS it does!
“…ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights…”
I’ll wait for you to catch up.
Ant,
“Should we invade them to stop the atrocities?”
I’d say that approach has been a decided failure of late. We create atrocities of our own when we do that, and we are very well equipped to create them. We need to find better approach than acting as the world’s SWAT team.
Sorry Jed there are good and evil in the world.
Evil that would seek to destroy our Constituition the DOI does not apply to.
Jed it seems you are only concerned with the rights of the captured and not the rights of innocent civilians of other nations.
That’s fuq’d up like polio.
(I don’t like being the world’s SWAT either)
Kia,
As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “If you are looking for evil, look in a mirror.”
If you destroy our principles to save us, you’ve destroyed us already. You’re that evil.
Gandhi didn’t have a nation to defend.
You are that stupid.
stupid is the wrong word. Naive. My apologies.
BTW Jed,
Stay away from Phantom…It’s for your own safety.
And I’d also suggest you pop in that DVD of The Siege again to get some additional talking points down.
Or just take a heavy coat with you everywhere.
Jed also conveniently leaves out the following sentence from the DOI:
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Ant,
“Jed it seems you are only concerned with the rights of the captured and not the rights of innocent civilians of other nations.”
Nope, I’m concerned with the rights of everybody. Protecting the rights of our friends by taking them away from our enemies is what got us into the mess we’re in now. Your approach seems to be that when you find a ball-peen hammer unsuitable to performing heart surgery, you go looking for a sledge hammer. Try a scalpel.
Jed,
You underestimate my skills with a sledge hammer.
Protecting the rights of our friends by taking them away from our enemies is what got us into the mess we’re in now.
========================================
No, a hand full of camel jockeys flying into buildings with thousands of Americans in them is what got us into this mess.
You can only slap at so many wasps until you get stung. We got stung. Time to go after the nest.
Kia,
“Gandhi didn’t have a nation to defend.”
Then how come he founded and led the movement that drove the Brits out of India? Are you really THAT stupid?
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Gee, are you now saying that governments have the right to deprive people of rights endowed them by their creator and their Constitution? Maybe you need to go back and pass your sixth grade civics class; you are that stupid.
Ant,
“No, a hand full of camel jockeys flying into buildings with thousands of Americans in them is what got us into this mess.”
If you think that’s where this mess started, you ought to try reading history before you’re made to repeat it.
Gee, are you now saying that governments have the right to deprive people of rights endowed them by their creator and their Constitution?
—————————————————-
Skippy, “Their Constituition”?
So you’re back to the Constituition of the United States applies to citizens of the world?
Your fairy tale view is nice. It’s not reality.
Jed
Posted May 11, 2009 at 4:51 pm | Permalink
Ant,
“No, a hand full of camel jockeys flying into buildings with thousands of Americans in them is what got us into this mess.”
If you think that’s where this mess started, you ought to try reading history before you’re made to repeat it.
==========================================
That is the spark that sent us to war, Jed.
Posted May 11, 2009 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
Kia,
“Gandhi didn’t have a nation to defend.”
Then how come he founded and led the movement that drove the Brits out of India? Are you really THAT stupid?
—————————————————-
You need to read up on history yourself Skippy.
Yes Gandhi was a leader and a very successful one. Along the lines of a Martin Luther King Jr.
Not an elected official.
Jed,
The kindling may have already been there, but 9/11 was the spark for us.
Anyway, the GITMO move is purely political.
ANTI
Posted May 11, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Permalink
That is the spark that sent us to war, Jed.
—————————————————-
Que anti-semitism in relation to establishment of Israel as sovereign nation………..
Kia,
“You can only slap at so many wasps until you get stung.”
Sweet Jesus! You’re even more that THAT stupid. You really assume that if you slap someone, they won’t defend themselves?
Not all the world has read Gandhi. If it had, they would know that not stinging does worse to those slapping them than stinging back. It’s not the instant gratification you prefer, but it brought down the British Empire to the point that the sun now sets on it every day. Try sometime reading Gandhi’s collected works. It’s available at Borders.
It’s really interesting to see how CONs somehow believe “rights” are now bestowed only to those they approve of.
Those aren’t “rights,” they’re “gifts.” And to subject yourself to “gifts” from the government is about as unAmerican a concept I can ever imagine.
Is it simply a “gift” from the government that permits you the right to keep and bear arms? Is it simply a “gift” from the government that lets you worship the way you choose?
What today’s CONs simply don’t want to admit is the Constitution of the United States of America exists to limit the power of government. Doesn’t matter who the alleged criminal is or where s/he’s from; the government of this particular republic is restrained from — or should be — arbitrarily deciding someone is a criminal, or terrorist, or enemy unless some pretty heavy circumstances are involved.
War? Yeah, that’s a circumstance that changes a lot of things. Takes a vote by Congress on the official declaration.
But it doesn’t bestow power of the government to capture, imprison, and waterboard anyone who’s considered an enemy in the “war” on poverty or the “war” on drugs.
Imminent danger? That’s iffy. Lincoln suspended the right to habeas corpus (for a limited area, in a time of civil war) and it’s still a constitutional controversy.
The Will of the Majority? Nope. That’s not a right bestowed by the Constitution. More people believed white people were superior to blacks for a long time (the SOCTUS sometimes gets it wrong). For all I know, Mirranda had it coming. But the Constitution restrained the government (that’s it’s job) from having too much power.
You know.
Conservatism.
If I were elected to office it’s interesting how “ANTI,” and “Boxlock20,” and “outlander,” et al are now on record as accepting I therebywould have the power to arrest and detain them simply because I say so.
Trial by jury? It’s merely a gift from President Monkeyhawk.
Privacy? It’s up to President Monkeyhawk.
Keep and bear arms? It’s only your “right” if President Monkeyhawk says so.
And, yes. Even if you’re from some other nation, this particular government is restrained from depriving you of your rights.
Will be interesting to see what kind of three ring circus that the GITMO prisoner move will turn into.
Kia,
“Yes Gandhi was a leader and a very successful one. Along the lines of a Martin Luther King Jr.”
Got your history a bit backassward there. It was King who read Gandhi.
“Not an elected official”
While Gandhi was the moral force of the National Congress Party, he never wanted or ran for any political office. If he had lived, he might have been forced by his supporters to accept a leadership role in India, but he certainly didn’t desire it.
Can anybody tell for sure what Monkeyhawk is writing about? No, me neither. It’s not conservatism though. But since he invoked my name and lied about something
***********
“What today’s CONs simply don’t want to admit is the Constitution of the United States of America exists to limit the power of government.”
———
Make sure you remember that one folks.
********
“If I were elected to office it’s interesting how “ANTI,” and “Boxlock20,” and “outlander,” et al are now on record as accepting I therebywould have the power to arrest and detain them simply because I say so.”
——–
Ummm… Wanna try that one again? Say, weren’t you accusing someone the other day of “sundowning”?
Reggie,
It will turn into whatever three-ring circus our politicians make it into. The only reason it’s going to be a three-ring circus is because your idol, King George the W and Queen Dick (or is it the other way around) didn’t believe they had to obey the law.
Oops. I had intended to remove the comment about Monkeyhawk lying. I thought you had, but then I realized you were just incoherent.
Sorry dude.
“outlander” –
WHOOOOSH!
I’m guessing the last thing President Monkeyhawk would hear would be a loud BANG!
Other than that, Mrs. Monkeyhawk, what did you think of the play?”
#
Jed
Posted May 11, 2009 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
Kia,
“Gandhi didn’t have a nation to defend.”
Then how come he founded and led the movement that drove the Brits out of India? Are you really THAT stupid?
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Gee, are you now saying that governments have the right to deprive people of rights endowed them by their creator and their Constitution? Maybe you need to go back and pass your sixth grade civics class; you are that stupid.
=============================================
Jed,
Please don’t be so hard on Mr_Kia…..it’s really not his fault.
His parents are home-schooling him.
#
Mr_Kia
Posted May 11, 2009 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
ANTI
Posted May 11, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Permalink
That is the spark that sent us to war, Jed.
—————————————————-
Que anti-semitism in relation to establishment of Israel as sovereign nation………..
=============================================
¿Qué?
Jed
Posted May 11, 2009 at 5:36 pm | Permalink
Reggie,
It will turn into whatever three-ring circus our politicians make it into. The only reason it’s going to be a three-ring circus is because your idol, King George the W and Queen Dick (or is it the other way around) didn’t believe they had to obey the law
===================================
Too bad Jed, wrong administration to reference…
You know have ArchBishop O’Bama and Princess Biden to be the ringmasters – along with court jesters, Pelosi and Reid.
¿Qué?
================
I have been searching for the upside down ‘?’ for some time….Well done.
Other than that, Mrs. Monkeyhawk, what did you think of the play?
=====================
Well played.
Yeah, we HAD to observe the “Rule of Law” when it came to bl*w j*bs and such, because “what would our children think?”
But when it comes to torture and violating US law – we have to answer to “the means justifies the end.”
Typical Con logic – sex=bad – violence=good.
S*cks to be you.
WSClark,
Damn Ur dumb.
Reggie,
“Too bad Jed, wrong administration to reference…”
Funny, I don’t remember that it was Obama’s idea to use Gitmo to try to hide prisoners of war (or whatever that was) from the rule of law. It was either Cheney’s or Bushie’s, and I rather doubt Bushie thought it up by himself. It wasn’t Obama who twisted himself into rhetorical knots trying to deny that those prisoners weren’t protected by the Geneva Conventions. In fact it wasn’t even Obama who invented those fictitious WMD’s to justify instigating a war of opportunity that had been planned (and published) by the neo-cons over eight years earlier.
Nope, I referenced the right administration.
The opinions of Rev. (sic) Spitz, who posted on 5/10 at 12:59, should carry no weight whatsoever. He uses his own website to try to make heroes out of murdering terrorists like Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, John Salvi, and James Kopp. He is so delusional that he thinks that he was ordained by the International Gospel Crusade, a denomination that only exists in his imagination.
Additionally, the Virginia State Police recently added Spitz’s Army of God to its list of Domestic Terrorist Organizations. That should give you an idea about the worth of his opinion.