Pelosi: Terrorists have the same rights as you

from JoeUser Forums
She has lost her mind. What people have been saying for a while is becoming true. The democratic party believes terrorists deserve the same rights as Americans do. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but from the previous actions I am not.


"Today the Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph of the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was the founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."
politics
2,996 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yea, I read about her idiocy. Just keep repeating to yourself "Speaker of the House Pelosi". That will chase all the other nightmares away.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pelosi never met a terrorist she didn't like... or a republican she did. ;~D
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
"We hold these truths to be self evident: That ALL men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, that among these rights are: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (CAPS mine). While I disagree with Nancy Pelosi on 99.9% of what she has to say, she is, technically, right on this point. Now if she'd realize those same rights apply to Conservative Christians and gun owners, we might get somewhere.

I'm not saying give these people citizenship rights, Island. I'm saying, remember we are a great nation for a reason: because we uphold high ideals and standards. Those ideals should extend to our treatment of detained prisoners as well.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I'm not saying give these people citizenship rights, Island. I'm saying, remember we are a great nation for a reason: because we uphold high ideals and standards. Those ideals should extend to our treatment of detained prisoners as well."


We are not a nation ruled by ideals, Gideon. No matter how often you pretend so it doesn't make it true. Were it true we STILL wouldn't be ruled by ideals, rather we'd be ruled by the ideals of people 200 years ago.

We are a nation ruled by the people. That's why we have the power to revise the Constitution to reflect our values. If it is our will that we kill or detain suspected terrorists who do not fall under the protection of American citizenship or the rules of international warfare, then so be it.

Anything else is an affront to democracy, and proves that we rule ourselves even less than we suppose we do.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"We hold these truths to be self evident: That ALL men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, that among these rights are: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (


It never said that those rights are immediately instilled upon those who decide to war on America under cloak of deceit. Yes, they have those rights. But they can abrogate them once they war on us. They did, and Pelosi wants to re-enable them with it.

How many times must we forgive a child molester before we determine they have abrogated those rights? The question is not "all men". The question is "ver men". (Sorry for the poetic license).
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
'm not saying give these people citizenship rights, Island. I'm saying, remember we are a great nation for a reason: because we uphold high ideals and standards. Those ideals should extend to our treatment of detained prisoners as well.


Foreign terrorists who are out to kill us have no rights under our Constitution.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Foreign terrorists who are out to kill us have no rights under our Constitution.


Right. So if we conveniently label anyone who opposes us a terrorist, we can nullify the Constitution entirely. Good thought! Maybe with enough effort, we can lower ourself ENTIRELY to their level!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Right. So if we conveniently label anyone who opposes us a terrorist, we can nullify the Constitution entirely. Good thought! Maybe with enough effort, we can lower ourself ENTIRELY to their level!"


You must no think much of us if we need rules to make us what we are. I would have assumed a LIBERTARIAN would grant that we are what we are with or without edicts from authority. I would trust our own conscience not to lower ourselves personally, and I would MUCH rather not use international conventions to RAISE them to our level.

But if you think we are beasts that need higher authorities to keep us on a tight leash... whatever.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
But if you think we are beasts that need higher authorities to keep us on a tight leash... whatever.


I think our government's power needs to be limited, Baker, because government has consistently and repeatedly shown a desire to abuse its power. How is that NOT a Libertarian concept? This is not about the way INDIVIDUALS have been treating the enemy combatants, but the way the GOVERNMENT is treating them.

What principle is it that you oppose for these suspects? Due process? Trial by Jury? The principle of being considered innocent until proven guilty? What principle of American jurisprudence are you and others demanding we not allow these detainees? About the only thing I can see reasonably denying them is bail, Baker, and that simply because of the very reasons why they are being detained. If they ARE terrorists, and we allow them bail, well, we won't see them again unless it's under a sheet.

I don't know what, if anything, the government is denying them that they have a reasonable right to, Baker. All we have right now our allegations, and as jaded as I am about our government, I will allow SOME assumption that they are at least ATTEMPTING to act in our best interests before I assume the worst. But what I hear on one and is the suggestion that these people should be allowed NO rights simply because of the mere suspicion that they MIGHT be guilty.

Did we learn nothing from McCarthyism, Baker? While I'm not gullible enough to believe the story of the vacationer picked up in Tora Bora on his way to Paris, I believe it is quite reasonable to assume that SOME of these detainees may be incarcerated on false allegations or faulty intelligence. Should they serve a life sentence as "unpeople" simply because you and the GOP deem it necessary for our national security? And should even the guilty be detained forever in legal limbo as casualties of an ambiguous "war on terror" that is little more than a shameful PR stunt that has cost the lives and liberties of far too many victims already?

The status of these detainees needs to be defined. I will readily concede, it's a difficult process. But it is exactly the sort of decision a LEADER needs to be prepared to make.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
But if you think we are beasts that need higher authorities to keep us on a tight leash... whatever.


By the way, Baker, if you want to lower yourself to further partisan mudslinging, this conversation will be over.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I think our government's power needs to be limited, Baker, because government has consistently and repeatedly shown a desire to abuse its power."


Limited by what? More government of government. What you continually fail to recognize is that WE, the voters, are the government, and all you want to do is limit what we can and can't direct our government to do. You would just have us ruled by the values of people 200 years ago and not our own.

Worse, in this case, you put international governance above self-governance. Where is the liberty in that, Gid? Where is the idealism of people being what they should be without having what is right and wrong imposed upon them? Why do we need more rules?

By the way, Baker, if you want to lower yourself to further partisan mudslinging, this conversation will be over.


When someone poses a point of view that is inconsistant with the ethics they espouse, I don't call pointing it out to be partisan mudslinging. Libertarianism has grown a nasty hypocritical streak since the 70's, where they seem to think that our liberties are actually protected through more government imposition.

That isn't libertarianism, it's the opposite. To say that the voters of the US have to be tied down not only by our own government, but by some esoteric international ideal that we may or may not even agree with isn't enhancing our Liberty, it is just imposing values on us by government mandate.

Not very Libertarian, in my opinion. Liberty is about freedom to govern ourselves as well as freedom from government imposition, and all I see Libertarianism doing in the last few years is restricting the choices we have. Sorry if that seems like partisan mudslinging, but when people who claim to represent 'liberty' tell voters that they can't do this and that, it seems facetious.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
What you continually fail to recognize is that WE, the voters, are the government, and all you want to do is limit what we can and can't direct our government to do.


How are we the government when we aren't allowed the information to make an informed decision, Baker? I agree that some things need to be protected from the media in the interests of national security, but IF we are to allow the government the power to preserve such things under national security, there must be checks on their power to ensure that they don't abuse it. If you insist that we, as a nation, have the right to make a decision as to how we treat these prisoners, then it MUST be an informed decision, and we MUST have access to all the information. This means that national security will be greatly compromised.

If we act as a representative democracy, as was designed, however, then we ust have the assurance that the government does not have the authority to perform certain actions.

The Constitution WAS written to limit the power of the government, like it or not, Baker. Governments do not have rights. Communities do not have rights. Individuals have rights, and the governments only have the power that the individuals allow them to have. We were meant to be governed from the bottom up, Baker, not the top down. And it's not just Libertarians who feel this way, but almost all scholars who espouse an "originalist" view of the Constitution. In fact, more of my view on Constitutional theory comes from Ed Meese than Michael Badnarik, though both have influenced my views.

I want to believe we have a government that isn't consistently abusing its power, Baker. Unfortunately, I have too much empirical data to the contrary to believe that is the case.

To say that the voters of the US have to be tied down not only by our own government, but by some esoteric international ideal that we may or may not even agree with isn't enhancing our Liberty, it is just imposing values on us by government mandate.


Please refresh my memory, Baker. I don't recall the referendum that was put before the U.S. Voters RE: the status of Gitmo detainees. And Gallup polls don't count!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not very Libertarian, in my opinion.


See, and this is where the whole thing gets me, Baker. If I walked around repeating "Not very Republican, in my opinion" to everything the GOP says and does, it would get your goat just as much. The fact is (and you know this to be true), that the GOP is too diverse as a party to merit being chronically characterized in this manner.

I've already stated why I hold the views I hold, Baker. I've also stated that I am not a "perfect" Libertarian (I believe I even wrote a whole article with that as the title). The reason I AM a Libertarian, however, is that the views and ideals of the LP are closest to my own and that it offers the best real chance for reform, in my personal opinion.

Right now, at this very moment (although I hope for it to change over time), I don't feel it would be at all unfair to characterize me as a single issue candidate. This is because I believe the CPS issue to be so pressing, so crucial, that most of our other rights hinge directly on what happens with this unConstitutional monstrosity over the next several years. The Democrats won't give ear (as a group) to my very real concerns; the Republicans won't give ear to these concerns, nor will the Greens. The so called "Constitution" Party is nothing more than a group of ultra-conservative theocrats that do not represent my position at all, while the Libertarian Party, while less than perfect, is at least in line with this crucial issue. You and a few Republicans are properly informed on the issue, but the party as a whole remain nothing more than a bunch of cheerleaders for what amounts to modern day slavery of the children of the poor and uneducated.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
What principle of American jurisprudence are you and others demanding we not allow these detainees?


Argg that is the conundrum. For if they are soldiers of war, they are not subject to our laws and that is against the Geneva convention. If they are not, then they are spies and again not subject to our constitution. That is the rub. They are foreign criminals. NOt covered by any laws. And should not be shown any compassion as their only existance in being is to subvert our laws. Not comply with them.