Comments on: Gonzales responds to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/ Protect yourself from government gaffes, bureaucratic blunders and incumbent incompetence Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:25:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Clark Ruell http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10042 Clark Ruell Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:04:08 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10042 Where to start. The above statements show a complete ignorance of the concept of law and of limited government. Charles- firstly a military court is not the same as our courts. While it's true that under the GC these terrorists do not qualify as soldiers and therefor do not enjoy the protection spelled out for soldiers, they are covered under the section dealing with non soldiers. These are ment to be basic human rights, not rights reserved only for soldiers. You do believe in basic human rights, don't you? Or are you trying to say that they are subhuman? F Racist. Renee- Democrats are for the same kind of government that Republicans are. Neither party respects law nor the Constitution nor individual Liberty. They simply have different ways of achieving their goals of destroying our liberty. Walter- Our government is to be under the law. Law is to clearly define limits to their authority and power. It is a standard to be referenced whether it's an agreement with 'We the People' or with other governments. It doesn't depend on who the government is persecuting nor what our government has gotten away with in the past. The gov't must follow certain basic proceadureds for all humans, whether they be citizen-subjects of the US or not. Whether they be in the US or not. Trials will hardly tie up so much resources that the gov't can't do it's job. Small price to pay for ensuring our gov't always follows the law. You are also protected by law, though less of late. Do you want a government that goes unchecked to be in charge of your freedoms? They have a terrible record of ensuring freedom. Saying that our press is on the side of terrorists is just plain stupid. The whole point of freedom of the press is to allow the press to report to 'we the people' what the gov't is doing. In countries where the press is suppressed by the gov't, those gov'ts can get away with more law breaking because it's not known about. When the gov't starts limiting free speech (newspapers, internet, whatever form) you should be afraid. Be very afraid. The truth is that very little damage has been done to our country by terrorist. Only a few thousand US people have died at their hands while the US military has murdered almost 40,000 civilians. These are totaly inocent people who, under the GC, are not to be fired upon. Our reputation as a nation has gone into the toilet as a result of all we have done over there. Besides, our own gov't has provided far more damage to our country by shredding the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the code of law than ANY terrorist(s) could possibly do. Walter, your comment about those you have labeled as co-conspiritors with the terrorists shows what a stupid a@@hole you really are. Where to start. The above statements show a complete ignorance of the concept of law and of limited government. Charles- firstly a military court is not the same as our courts. While it’s true that under the GC these terrorists do not qualify as soldiers and therefor do not enjoy the protection spelled out for soldiers, they are covered under the section dealing with non soldiers. These are ment to be basic human rights, not rights reserved only for soldiers. You do believe in basic human rights, don’t you? Or are you trying to say that they are subhuman? F Racist.
Renee- Democrats are for the same kind of government that Republicans are. Neither party respects law nor the Constitution nor individual Liberty. They simply have different ways of achieving their goals of destroying our liberty.
Walter- Our government is to be under the law. Law is to clearly define limits to their authority and power. It is a standard to be referenced whether it’s an agreement with ‘We the People’ or with other governments. It doesn’t depend on who the government is persecuting nor what our government has gotten away with in the past. The gov’t must follow certain basic proceadureds for all humans, whether they be citizen-subjects of the US or not. Whether they be in the US or not. Trials will hardly tie up so much resources that the gov’t can’t do it’s job. Small price to pay for ensuring our gov’t always follows the law. You are also protected by law, though less of late. Do you want a government that goes unchecked to be in charge of your freedoms? They have a terrible record of ensuring freedom. Saying that our press is on the side of terrorists is just plain stupid. The whole point of freedom of the press is to allow the press to report to ‘we the people’ what the gov’t is doing. In countries where the press is suppressed by the gov’t, those gov’ts can get away with more law breaking because it’s not known about. When the gov’t starts limiting free speech (newspapers, internet, whatever form) you should be afraid. Be very afraid.
The truth is that very little damage has been done to our country by terrorist. Only a few thousand US people have died at their hands while the US military has murdered almost 40,000 civilians. These are totaly inocent people who, under the GC, are not to be fired upon. Our reputation as a nation has gone into the toilet as a result of all we have done over there. Besides, our own gov’t has provided far more damage to our country by shredding the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the code of law than ANY terrorist(s) could possibly do.
Walter, your comment about those you have labeled as co-conspiritors with the terrorists shows what a stupid a@@hole you really are.

]]> By: Rob Miller http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10041 Rob Miller Tue, 04 Jul 2006 21:00:48 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10041 As I said, if you can proclaim with confidence that these people are terrorists, why the hell haven't they been charged? Surely it would be better to see them imprisoned for what they have done and were planning to do if they are dangerous criminals who will stop at nothing to harm society? Also, the word "Islamofascist" is a meaningless, moronic term and it would probably be better if you didn't use it. As I said, if you can proclaim with confidence that these people are terrorists, why the hell haven’t they been charged? Surely it would be better to see them imprisoned for what they have done and were planning to do if they are dangerous criminals who will stop at nothing to harm society?

Also, the word “Islamofascist” is a meaningless, moronic term and it would probably be better if you didn’t use it.

]]> By: Walter Clark http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10040 Walter Clark Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:17:55 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10040 Enemy combatants, be they terrorists who, by their every thought and action have removed themselves from protection under the Geneva Conventions, or captured enemy soldiers, are not, under international law, entitled to either military or civilian trial. Go back and look at World War I, World War II, Korea, whatever. We captured them and held them, without access to legal counsel, courts or hearings, until the end of hostilities. The only thing lawyers and others who want to give full access to the courts are doing, whether they intend to or not, is provide those who are against the US and freedom another avenue to tie up the US Government and make defending our country, people and freedom more difficult. In the exact same way the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post and other media outlets that take leaked secret information and publicize it are directly fighting against the interests of this nation and with and for the terrorists. The think I find most amazing about all this is that the very people who are doing as much as they possibly can to insure the victory of the Islamofascists and the destruction of our nation are the ones whose lifestyles and beliefs would be first for the Islamofascists to punish. Or maybe that's it, you have an insanity problem and fantasize about being repeated raped and tortured by Osama and his friends. Sick, sick, sick. Walter M. Clark Enemy combatants, be they terrorists who, by their every thought and action have removed themselves from protection under the Geneva Conventions, or captured enemy soldiers, are not, under international law, entitled to either military or civilian trial. Go back and look at World War I, World War II, Korea, whatever. We captured them and held them, without access to legal counsel, courts or hearings, until the end of hostilities. The only thing lawyers and others who want to give full access to the courts are doing, whether they intend to or not, is provide those who are against the US and freedom another avenue to tie up the US Government and make defending our country, people and freedom more difficult. In the exact same way the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post and other media outlets that take leaked secret information and publicize it are directly fighting against the interests of this nation and with and for the terrorists.

The think I find most amazing about all this is that the very people who are doing as much as they possibly can to insure the victory of the Islamofascists and the destruction of our nation are the ones whose lifestyles and beliefs would be first for the Islamofascists to punish. Or maybe that’s it, you have an insanity problem and fantasize about being repeated raped and tortured by Osama and his friends.

Sick, sick, sick.

Walter M. Clark

]]> By: Rob Miller http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10039 Rob Miller Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:34:41 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10039 Charles, if the US has enough evidence to proclaim with confidence that the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists, why not give them a fair trial? You'll end up showing that democracy and fairness triumphs over evil, and have the added bonus of putting away some dangerous people. Unless of course you don't have that evidence, and the detainees are entirely innocent... well, that would be a problem. Charles, if the US has enough evidence to proclaim with confidence that the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists, why not give them a fair trial? You’ll end up showing that democracy and fairness triumphs over evil, and have the added bonus of putting away some dangerous people.

Unless of course you don’t have that evidence, and the detainees are entirely innocent… well, that would be a problem.

]]> By: Renee Sanders http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10038 Renee Sanders Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:41:19 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10038 Once again I find myself agreeing with many of the postings on this Libertarian blog. My question is, will the Libertarians join with the Democrats to unseat the Republican Rubberstamp Congress. Could the Libs tolerate a Democrat controlled Congress for at least two years? Once again I find myself agreeing with many of the postings on this Libertarian blog. My question is, will the Libertarians join with the Democrats to unseat the Republican Rubberstamp Congress. Could the Libs tolerate a Democrat controlled Congress for at least two years?

]]> By: Michael Hampton http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10037 Michael Hampton Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:16:50 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10037 And many of them weren't fighting at all. And many of them weren’t fighting at all.

]]> By: Charles Stricklin http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10036 Charles Stricklin Mon, 03 Jul 2006 00:40:40 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/01/gonzales-responds-to-hamdan-v-rumsfeld-ruling/#comment-10036 I fail to understand where the Geneva Convention regulations even enter the picture. These captured enemy combatants don't belong to any army, don't wear any uniform and don't fight for any nation. They are terrorists in the truest sense, undeserving of Geneva Convention guarantees. And since when have our enemies ever followed them to begin with? Vietnam didn't, Korea didn't, Japan didn't, Germany didn't, why should we? I'm not advocating a Hotel Hanoi or a Bataan death march or anything, what I am saying is a military tribunal is preferable to allowing these maniacal terrorists unfettered access to their enemy country's legal system! Allowing these thugs to have standard trials will allow them to turn our courts into pulpits to spew their hate and make public national security secrets. I'd rather return them to Iraq and Afghanistan to face trial and punishment than to allow them access to the same justice system serving you and I, broken as it may be. I fail to understand where the Geneva Convention regulations even enter the picture. These captured enemy combatants don’t belong to any army, don’t wear any uniform and don’t fight for any nation. They are terrorists in the truest sense, undeserving of Geneva Convention guarantees.

And since when have our enemies ever followed them to begin with? Vietnam didn’t, Korea didn’t, Japan didn’t, Germany didn’t, why should we?

I’m not advocating a Hotel Hanoi or a Bataan death march or anything, what I am saying is a military tribunal is preferable to allowing these maniacal terrorists unfettered access to their enemy country’s legal system! Allowing these thugs to have standard trials will allow them to turn our courts into pulpits to spew their hate and make public national security secrets.

I’d rather return them to Iraq and Afghanistan to face trial and punishment than to allow them access to the same justice system serving you and I, broken as it may be.

]]>