America and the ten step programme
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
errr, you must have missed this part of what you posted.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; errr, you must have missed this part of what you posted.
This section is talking about servicemen who break the law during wartime or during martial law; a commander doesn't have the luxury of carrying out a trial for a deserter. This leaves the door open to shoot them on sight, the typical punishment for desertion in wartime.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
I don't see the word citizen anywhere. Rights are rights that belong to human beings, not US Citizens. Our founders intentionally left out the word 'citizen' for exactly that reason.
This part is pertinent:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public dangerThere are several exceptions in the constitution regarding acts of war against the United States and treason, regardless of citizenship. Raising arms with a foreign country against the US government is considered both treasonous and an act of war. Also note this:
Patrick Sears wrote:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
The left wants POWs to be tried in criminal courts, but the problem is that these people are not guilty of committing crimes within US jurisdiction and are consequently not "criminals". The term criminal[^] prosecution refers to prosecution for committing a crime[^], which is something contrary to law over which the law has jurisdiction. Acts of war are and always were extra-criminal and constitutional protections are not guaranteed regardless of citizenship.
Red Stateler wrote:
The left wants POWs to be tried in criminal courts, but the problem is that these people are not guilty of committing crimes within US jurisdiction and are consequently not "criminals". The term criminal[^] prosecution refers to prosecution for committing a crime[^], which is something contrary to law over which the law has jurisdiction. Acts of war are and always were extra-criminal and constitutional protections are not guaranteed regardless of citizenship.
This seems to be splitting hairs for the express purpose of violating individual's human rights. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court currently agrees with you. Personally, I should think that even if that argument makes sense legally (and I can accept that maybe it does), it would still be more honorable to try those people in a civil, criminal court to give the public confidence in their leaders and that the trials are about justice.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Interesting reading, to be sure. There are a lot of claims made without supporting documentation. And some of the evidence presented in support of the "steps" is pretty weak. But it's worth investigating.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
Interesting reading, to be sure. There are a lot of claims made without supporting documentation. And some of the evidence presented in support of the "steps" is pretty weak.
I agree. I dislike those kinds of postings because they're always made with the express purpose of forcing the evidence to fit the crime. Not a shred of objectivity to be found.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
I thought the article suitable food for thought. On the subject of the US; one thing that strikes me weird and totally bonkers is how the recent shooting at some school or other hasn't ignited a handgun-ban debate, it beggars belief. I suppose the NRA has a tight grip on the media.
You folks living without the use of a device to listen to the news?? Various politicians have already started, claiming that we need to tighten gun control laws. They've (news stations) even had James Brady on TV to interview about this! C'mon, the left isn't going to let this slide --- there's too much to be gained politically to let this go.
John P.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The left wants POWs to be tried in criminal courts, but the problem is that these people are not guilty of committing crimes within US jurisdiction and are consequently not "criminals". The term criminal[^] prosecution refers to prosecution for committing a crime[^], which is something contrary to law over which the law has jurisdiction. Acts of war are and always were extra-criminal and constitutional protections are not guaranteed regardless of citizenship.
This seems to be splitting hairs for the express purpose of violating individual's human rights. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court currently agrees with you. Personally, I should think that even if that argument makes sense legally (and I can accept that maybe it does), it would still be more honorable to try those people in a civil, criminal court to give the public confidence in their leaders and that the trials are about justice.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Where the hell is "justice" in a war? Wars have a separate distinction from criminal acts. The Nazis were tried after the war for crimes against humanity, and they weren't tried in 'civilian' courts, rather military tribunals! Just like the President wants to do with this current group of thugs and murderers who kill in the name of some religion. They lived by the sword, now they should die by the sword. They chose what they were doing. There are CONSEQUENCES to your ACTIONS. It's now time for the consequences to be carried out. I, for one, am tired of paying for their upkeep (and their Korans)!!
John P.
-
Where the hell is "justice" in a war? Wars have a separate distinction from criminal acts. The Nazis were tried after the war for crimes against humanity, and they weren't tried in 'civilian' courts, rather military tribunals! Just like the President wants to do with this current group of thugs and murderers who kill in the name of some religion. They lived by the sword, now they should die by the sword. They chose what they were doing. There are CONSEQUENCES to your ACTIONS. It's now time for the consequences to be carried out. I, for one, am tired of paying for their upkeep (and their Korans)!!
John P.
jparken wrote:
The Nazis were tried after the war for crimes against humanity, and they weren't tried in 'civilian' courts, rather military tribunals!
Very, very public ones. I think that's important. As for the rest of your post.. there's so much anger that it doesn't seem worth responding to.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Craster wrote:
And this is fundamentally why modern democracy is an exercise in futility. You rest your government in the hands of the populous, but the populous is far to easy to sway to one side or the other using the media. It becomes one big contest of popularity and gullibility.
It is very telling that the left seems to disparage democracy when it does not go entirely their way. Some how Bush represents an example of the failure of democracy because the left disagrees with his policies. I think this phenomenon explains the rise of democracy by judicial fiat as we are expericing in the US. I have read several American posters here over the last few weeks defending court decisions as part of our 'representational democracy'. Yet court appointments are for life precisely so that judges don't need to be concerned with politics and the democratic whims of the people. How can that be considered 'representational democracy'? Clearly, it cannot. The left seems to be abandoning the west's long standing committment to democracy precisely because they cannot use it to force their agenda on society. And frankly, that is something to be afraid ot.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is very telling that the left seems to disparage democracy when it does not go entirely their way. Some how Bush represents an example of the failure of democracy because the left disagrees with his policies.
Kinda like how we react when a country elects a leader we don't like after we install democracy there. Hamas comes to mind. We don't like it, so that democracy isn't valid?
This statement was never false.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is very telling that the left seems to disparage democracy when it does not go entirely their way. Some how Bush represents an example of the failure of democracy because the left disagrees with his policies.
If you reject the will of the people when that will contradicts your own, then you're anti-democratic. It's a fundamental leftist belief that the people are dolts, democracy should be rejected and we should be led by an "intellectual" oligarchy. I've gotten at least half a dozen leftists here in the soapbox to flat out admit that. Why do you think leftists adore judicial legislation so much?
So then when the people of Palestine elect Hamas overwhelmingly. . . and we object... then by your own logic Bush is anti-democratic.
This statement was never false.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is very telling that the left seems to disparage democracy when it does not go entirely their way. Some how Bush represents an example of the failure of democracy because the left disagrees with his policies.
Kinda like how we react when a country elects a leader we don't like after we install democracy there. Hamas comes to mind. We don't like it, so that democracy isn't valid?
This statement was never false.
Yeah, its exactly the same thing. :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Where the hell is "justice" in a war? Wars have a separate distinction from criminal acts. The Nazis were tried after the war for crimes against humanity, and they weren't tried in 'civilian' courts, rather military tribunals! Just like the President wants to do with this current group of thugs and murderers who kill in the name of some religion. They lived by the sword, now they should die by the sword. They chose what they were doing. There are CONSEQUENCES to your ACTIONS. It's now time for the consequences to be carried out. I, for one, am tired of paying for their upkeep (and their Korans)!!
John P.
jparken wrote:
Just like the President wants to do with this current group of thugs and murderers who kill in the name of some religion. They lived by the sword, now they should die by the sword. They chose what they were doing. There are CONSEQUENCES to your ACTIONS.
Isn't that the WHOLE point though - to establish IF they actually did what they're accused of doing?
"Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox