1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS: Gitmo prisoners have rights under Constitution

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by dixiehack, Jun 12, 2008.

  1. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    My only thought is that I hope and pray certain members of this board never sit on a jury of my peers. Because after seeing their beliefs on display here, I'm not really sure I'd claim some of them as peers.

    Nor do I think justice would be truly served by them.
     
  2. SixToe

    SixToe Well-Known Member

    Ever? Of all time?
     
  3. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    For what it represents? Yeah, I really think so.
     
  4. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    Sure enough Michael Savage was calling for President Bush to issue a "writ of arrest" for the Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg and for them to be thrown in jail, as well as "the boys from NYU" who represented the prisoners.
    But on what charge?
    He also said there was precedent for that. That Abraham Lincoln did it (funny, I don't remember hearing about that).
     
  5. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member

    How do you know he hasn't?

    The only problem I'm having with this whole situation is that if they give illegal immigrants protection under our constitution, and they aren't citizens, then what's the difference with these enemy combatants?
    I think Bush has let the illegals get away with it, as a "compassionate conservative", so now he gets screwed on this one.

    Personally I don't think illegals or these Gitmo bastards should be protected by our constitution, but Bush and his cronies can't have it both ways.
     
  6. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    Either these Gitmo bastards are protected by our constitution or they're protected by the Geneva Convention.
     
  7. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member

    Now I would tend to lean more toward the Geneva Convention. But only for the ones actually suited up in military garb and not hiding among the innocent citizens.

    Oh wait.

    I guess neither the constitution nor the GC would apply.
     
  8. So those people have no legal rights at all?
    How is that different than if you went to Spain and they just grabbed you, called you an enemy combatant and let you rot in a cell until you died of old age?
     
  9. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Try and stay with the tour. I know it's difficult but citizenship has nothing to do with constitutional rights.

    What you think is both irrelevant and offensive

    To quote Deskslave:

    Jesus, I'm not an American and I know that.

    Maybe you should actually read your Constitution.
     
  10. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member

    I do see your point on that. But . . .

    1. In these times I don't plan on leaving the country.
    2. I won't be going to Spain, strapping a bomb on my person or on a mentally handicapped woman to send her off to a market for explosion time.
    3. If it did happen to me, it couldn't be any worse than the hell you guys put me through on this board. Please torture me you Spanish MPs.
     
  11. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    Nor, apparently, would the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Because here's the thing: We haven't proven, in many of these cases, that these guys are in fact guilty of what we're accusing them of. We've grabbed the ones "hiding among civilians," shipped 'em to Cuba and left them there, never actually determining whether they were hiding among civilians or, you know, actual civilians.

    Constitution? Geneva Conventions? How 'bout basic human decency? How 'bout proving we're better than they are by treating them better than they deserve?
     
  12. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    Ah yes. The always popular "if you don't do anything wrong, your rights aren't being violated" defense.

    Ignoring that the question was predicated on the notion of being falsely accused.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page