The Democrats, Roch. Those that will even use the courts in their fight against the ENEMY--the Republican administration. The Dems and the media are happy to sacrifice our US soldiers by supporting the terrorists if it means opposing the Republican administration. Republicans--fighting against the enemies of our country. Dems--fighting against the Republicans even if it means getting in bed with the enemies of our country.
Roch said: "Jaycee, it's unfortunate that you see the issue that way."
Really? And somehow by binding the hands of our military in combat causing more soldiers to die on foreign soil we're "protecting" our Constitution? Can you explain how that works?
I'm sorry, you'll have to explain to me how giving imprisoned people the right to challenge their detentions is binding the hands of military in combat.
Roch, as a "non-combatant" you wouldn't understand if I told you. You're merely an observer. When it gets to the point the soldiers have to stop in the middle of a firefight with enemy soldiers (not US citizens) on foreign soil (not inside the US or it's territories or anywhere else subject to US criminal law) and advise them of their constitutional rights and call for a lawyer to determine their status before putting a 5.56mm round right in their face then we've gone too far. And I predict it won't be long. Apparently you're from the "give me an inch and I'll take a mile" wing of the liberal party. Once you camels get a nose under the tent, you'll invade, expand, and stupidify anything you come in contact with, truth or common sense be damned, in your pitiful quest for power and to defeat your enemy. And your enemy is the same as the Islamic terrorists--the Republican party. So in this sense the Dems take the old phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" to a sad new height: Teaming up with Islamic terrorists against Republicans and using the silly excuse of "Constitutional rights for enemy soldiers on the battlefield" as a crude vehicle for your attack. If you don't understand the ramifications of the recent SCOTUS decision then you'd best be damn glad, Roch, that brave American and coalition soldiers stand ready to do what you won't and defend what you can't understand.
Roch, please explain your earlier post that this SCOTUS decision, involving foreigners captured in a foreign country on a field of battle and not held in the US, qualifies as "protecting the US Constitution." Explain how these enemy combatants are guaranteed the same protection as criminal suspects in the US. Explain the precedent for this decision, since never before have foreigners, not in violation of US criminal law, not on US soil, and not arrested by a government agency are guaranteed protection under the US Constitution. Are you suggesting that Sergeant Alvin York, upon the capture of 132 German prisoners in 1918 during a battle, should have sent a carrier pigeon requesting 132 lawyers?
I doubt I know what you are talking about. What folks?
ReplyDelete(sigh)
ReplyDeleteNever mind.
The Democrats, Roch. Those that will even use the courts in their fight against the ENEMY--the Republican administration.
ReplyDeleteThe Dems and the media are happy to sacrifice our US soldiers by supporting the terrorists if it means opposing the Republican administration.
Republicans--fighting against the enemies of our country.
Dems--fighting against the Republicans even if it means getting in bed with the enemies of our country.
Bubba clueless about the meaning of his own post? Why are we not surprised.
ReplyDeleteJaycee, it's unfortunate that you see the issue that way. It is actually about protecting the Constitution that people like Bubba fought to defend.
Roch said:
ReplyDelete"Jaycee, it's unfortunate that you see the issue that way."
Really? And somehow by binding the hands of our military in combat causing more soldiers to die on foreign soil we're "protecting" our Constitution? Can you explain how that works?
I'm sorry, you'll have to explain to me how giving imprisoned people the right to challenge their detentions is binding the hands of military in combat.
ReplyDeleteRoch, as a "non-combatant" you wouldn't understand if I told you. You're merely an observer.
ReplyDeleteWhen it gets to the point the soldiers have to stop in the middle of a firefight with enemy soldiers (not US citizens) on foreign soil (not inside the US or it's territories or anywhere else subject to US criminal law) and advise them of their constitutional rights and call for a lawyer to determine their status before putting a 5.56mm round right in their face then we've gone too far. And I predict it won't be long.
Apparently you're from the "give me an inch and I'll take a mile" wing of the liberal party. Once you camels get a nose under the tent, you'll invade, expand, and stupidify anything you come in contact with, truth or common sense be damned, in your pitiful quest for power and to defeat your enemy. And your enemy is the same as the Islamic terrorists--the Republican party. So in this sense the Dems take the old phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" to a sad new height: Teaming up with Islamic terrorists against Republicans and using the silly excuse of "Constitutional rights for enemy soldiers on the battlefield" as a crude vehicle for your attack.
If you don't understand the ramifications of the recent SCOTUS decision then you'd best be damn glad, Roch, that brave American and coalition soldiers stand ready to do what you won't and defend what you can't understand.
What you describe is a construct of your imagination and does not reflect the facts as they are.
ReplyDeleteDo you have an argument against the facts of the Supreme Court's decision or is your only argument against the bed-wetting fears of your own making?
Roch, please explain your earlier post that this SCOTUS decision, involving foreigners captured in a foreign country on a field of battle and not held in the US, qualifies as "protecting the US Constitution." Explain how these enemy combatants are guaranteed the same protection as criminal suspects in the US. Explain the precedent for this decision, since never before have foreigners, not in violation of US criminal law, not on US soil, and not arrested by a government agency are guaranteed protection under the US Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that Sergeant Alvin York, upon the capture of 132 German prisoners in 1918 during a battle, should have sent a carrier pigeon requesting 132 lawyers?