President Bush is the second president to reluctantly restore Constitutional rights to those accused of being enemies of the United States and held indefinitely without any proof or trial.
Link to rest.
Link to rest.
Bush Second President to Restore Rights
- Thread starter Lee
- Start date
Chain729
CageKicker Extraordinaire
Big difference: Lincoln's prisoners were CITIZENS. Since when are non-citizens, captured in a war on foreign soil protected by the Constitution? Gotta love the government we have: They continually strip the rights of productive citizens, while handing them to enemies, lazy b******s, and overall scum.
bcp
In My Opinion
since the liberals in an attempt at protecting the illegals in the country decided that the constitution was a blanket over the the country instead of a document of specific rights held by citizens of this country.
anyone that finds themsleves in the U.S or one of its territories, by choice or by force, legal or illegal, law abiding or criminal is afforded the rights of the constitution and all benefits that it specifically insures.
Kerad
New Member
I'm sure it was something he chose to do...
Yeah, he sure did! Right after the Supreme Court ruled against his administration...again.
Something he chose to do.
If you bothered to read the decision the Supreme Court found that it was the laws enacted by Congress to suspend the ability of a prisoner from using the writ of habeous corpus that were found to be unconstitutional for a limited class of prisoners and not the actions of the administration that were simply following the laws provided to them.Yeah, he sure did! Right after the Supreme Court ruled against his administration...again.
Something he chose to do.
Kerad
New Member
No, it's not necessary for me to read the 134 page syllabus.
So...what are you implying? That in this case of Boumediene v. Bush, that Bush is just an innocent bystander in trying to prevent habeas corpus from applying? Well, if that's the case, I'm sure he's quite happy with the court's decision.
Let's see:
Yep...he's ecstatic!
What's this...the 3rd time the Bush administration has had the Supreme Court rule against it's Guantanamo policies? And all along they thought keeping the prisoners down there would mean the rule of law would not apply.
Chain729
CageKicker Extraordinaire
No, it's not necessary for me to read the 134 page syllabus.
So...what are you implying? That in this case of Boumediene v. Bush, that Bush is just an innocent bystander in trying to prevent habeas corpus from applying? Well, if that's the case, I'm sure he's quite happy with the court's decision.
Let's see:
Yep...he's ecstatic!
What's this...the 3rd time the Bush administration has had the Supreme Court rule against it's Guantanamo policies? And all along they thought keeping the prisoners down there would mean the rule of law would not apply.
They aren't citizens, they shouldn't have the rights of our citizens. Otherwise, what does being a "citizen" really mean anyway? Guess they should've let the Iraqi's have them and keep them in their prisons.
Kerad
New Member
They're not US citizens, certainly. But they're in our "system"...our legal and/or military judicial system. The laws that apply to these systems also apply to prisoners in those systems.
Another thing, a decision was made to not classify these prisoners as POW's, as then the Geneva convention would apply. That's where the term "enemy combatants" applies, in this instance. (At least that's my understanding of it.)
Last edited:
To understand what was in fact decided makes reading the decision paramount. But go ahead and continue to let some media pundit do the reading and the thinking for you. I understand how independently thinking can be such a difficult task for some, like you.No, it's not necessary for me to read the 134 page syllabus.
So...what are you implying? That in this case of Boumediene v. Bush, that Bush is just an innocent bystander in trying to prevent habeas corpus from applying? Well, if that's the case, I'm sure he's quite happy with the court's decision.
Let's see:
Yep...he's ecstatic!
What's this...the 3rd time the Bush administration has had the Supreme Court rule against it's Guantanamo policies? And all along they thought keeping the prisoners down there would mean the rule of law would not apply.
The fact is that it was Congressional acts that were found to violate the Constitution and not the acts of the one charged with executing them. Placing blame solely on the executive is displaced and a poor understanding of our governing policy.
You are quick to misfocus the blame, just as the media does, on Bush because of your hatred of the man. Why not focus on those that made the laws or gave him the authority to act in the first place? After all without them would we even have half of the problems that we face today?
Kerad
New Member
Who signed these acts into laws?
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
Obama?
You should know by now ... whenever Bush does something wrong, it's Congress' fault. When Bush does something right, it's Bush's doing.
"The buck stops here" does not apply to Bush.
Did they need to be signed?
Kerad
New Member
Attachments
Yes, he signed them, but the question was "Did they need to be signed?"
bcp
In My Opinion
Ken King, as always, your posts are to the point and filled with good information that causes people to think before posting,
yet I ask,
were the laws in the constitution meant to cover the non citizens when it was written?
were the citizens even citizens prior to the writing of the constitution, or did that single document make them citizens.
Did the English armies have protections under the constitution of the united states?
Im just not totally sold on the idea that a non citizen is to be extended all of the courtesy's of a citizen.
yet I ask,
were the laws in the constitution meant to cover the non citizens when it was written?
were the citizens even citizens prior to the writing of the constitution, or did that single document make them citizens.
Did the English armies have protections under the constitution of the united states?
Im just not totally sold on the idea that a non citizen is to be extended all of the courtesy's of a citizen.