So about those "fair trials" at Guantanamo

Where exactly does that argument stop? If the constitution should be ignored because we couldn't foresee terrorists in 1787, how many other things would fall under the "well we couldn't have known about it back then" category?

Talk about a slippery slope.

And FWIW, we're defined by our Constitution. If we start acting outside of it, then we're no longer the United States of America. We're a different country. If you want to support a system that functions outside the constitution, that's fine. Just don't call yourself an American.

 

To paraphrase a departed board friend, a handful of rag-tag terrorists with box cutters and flight-school training have accomplished what the Soviet Union and its arsenal of Intercontinental Ballistic Nuclear Missiles couldn't.

It's sad.

 

Yes, every single amendment is there for a reason: to grant us more rights, not fewer. (Except Prohibition, which coincidentally is the only one to be repealed.)

 

I prefer to live in fear that someone somewhere is plotting my demise, therefore we need to lock up anyone who might look like him. God Bless America.

 

You're not really comparing the Equal Rights, Suffrage and other amendments to holding someone indefinitely without habeus corpus are you?

And no one is saying you can't argue against leaders/govt., it's about willfully violating the Constitution.

Paraphrasing what Joe said, I refuse to believe that any danger posed to us is great enough to trash something that has guided this country for more than 200 years. You want to give up all of our principals because you're scared? Sorry, but it strikes me as a cowardly approach.

 

There was the WWII and we had Japanese-American internment camps.
There was the Red scare, and we had McCarthyism and blacklisting.
Now, there's the threat of terrorists, and we have people advocating and applauding the imprisonment of innocent people.

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

Thanks, Mr. Franklin.

 

Seriously? I mean, you do know that those acts (imprisoning Americans, blacklisting people based on innuendo) are viewed as shameful moments in our history, right? They didn't accomplish anything. They don't support your argument that we should be doing what we're doing now.

 

The important thing is that it took seven years to convict a chaffeur.

I know I feel safer.

 

Don't forget your ball on the way home.

 

And here I thought you were leaving because you were tired of avoiding answering questions about the shortfalls in your argument.