"Heller vs DC" decision thread....

[Gixxer86g]

>Basically I feel that once it was learned that OSBL was in Tora Bora or whatever it's called I would have ordered a Thermonuclear strike and screw what the rest of the world thought.

I agree with that!Just as long as we gave our SOCOM forces in place time to get out.

A good customer of mine at the shop I used to work at was killed that morning.He was a Lt. in the PA police.And JTR,the images of people jumping from the towers still haunts me.

[muskokaandtahoe]

> Geneva Convention maybe? Sorry but I'm no expert.

Vince, the Geneva Convention only protects combatants if they are in uniform. No uniform, no Geneva Convention protection. Period.

> The recent decision by the Supreme Court did NOT give those bozo's full constitutional rights. Just the right to have the evidence heard in front of a trial judge.

Vince, this quote is from the majority opinion:

It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of a conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history. See Oxford Companion to American Military History 849 (1999). The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government. Under these circumstances the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our holding.

We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay.

I dunno about you, but my reading of that goes like this: We've no basis for ruling the way we are ruling but that isn't going to stop us.

Here's the first paragraph from the main dissent:

Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation. And to what effect? The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people's representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date. One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority's ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants.

Again, I dunno your opinion of that quote... mine is this: judicial activism, once again, crafts law from whole cloth to acheive a pre-determined political goal.

You still ok with that or is your reading differnt than mine?

[rdamurphy]

Man, Vince, some people just like to run off at the keyboard, but all you've done is rant stupidity. You don't even know what the Constitution says! Have you ever read it? You probably even think it contains a "right to privacy!" If you actually READ the thing, you'll find that the rights enumerated apply to US citizens ONLY!

Since you've obviously figured out that polar bears and penguins live at opposite ends of the earth, surprisingly enough, perhaps you could explain to us what country Guantanamo Bay is in? Hint: It's NOT in the US!

It's also interesting, that like most Liberals, you only cherry pick out the parts you want to, why not quote the ENTIRE oath for the US Military:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

It doesn't say "I will obey the orders..." only when I agree with it and when my liberal opinions don't conflict with the President! There's nothing in the Oath, nor the UCMJ, that lets you as an individual decide what is unConstitutional, illegal, immoral, or tooth-decaying and allows you to judge the President as a criminal or anything else. So, chalk up "I doubt if you served" to my list. Or if you did serve, you were probably a professional private and spent most of your time peeling potatoes in the mess hall.

I know liberals love to throw around words like "unConstitutional" to bolster their empty arguments, but that's exactly what you're doing, and how can you take an oath to protect and defend something you haven't even read and don't understand!

Forget the stupid liberal lie that "dissent is patriotism." It isn't. It's treason. The decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq was made by Congress years ago, and has been legally executed by the President and the Armed Forces. Just because you personally, and the idiots at morons.org and dailykooks don't agree with it, doesn't make one, tiny, miniscule, bit of difference to anybody. Even the Democrats that you supposedly elected to "end the war." They just used it as an issue to get easily duped people like you to vote for them. And it worked.

Robert

[rdamurphy]

Back on subject:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-historys-lessons-and-gun-rights/

Robert

[Vince]

Robert puts his stake with some historical figures.

Man, Vince, some people just like to run off at the keyboard, but all you've done is rant stupidity. You don't even know what the Constitution says! Have you ever read it? You probably even think it contains a "right to privacy!" If you actually READ the thing, you'll find that the rights enumerated apply to US citizens ONLY!
Since you've obviously figured out that polar bears and penguins live at opposite ends of the earth, surprisingly enough, perhaps you could explain to us what country Guantanamo Bay is in? Hint: It's NOT in the US!
It's also interesting, that like most Liberals, you only cherry pick out the parts you want to, why not quote the ENTIRE oath for the US Military:

It doesn't say "I will obey the orders..." only when I agree with it and when my liberal opinions don't conflict with the President! There's nothing in the Oath, nor the UCMJ, that lets you as an individual decide what is unConstitutional, illegal, immoral, or tooth-decaying and allows you to judge the President as a criminal or anything else. So, chalk up "I doubt if you served" to my list. Or if you did serve, you were probably a professional private and spent most of your time peeling potatoes in the mess hall.

I know liberals love to throw around words like "unConstitutional" to bolster their empty arguments, but that's exactly what you're doing, and how can you take an oath to protect and defend something you haven't even read and don't understand!

Forget the stupid liberal lie that "dissent is patriotism." It isn't. It's treason. The decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq was made by Congress years ago, and has been legally executed by the President and the Armed Forces. Just because you personally, and the idiots at morons.org and dailykooks don't agree with it, doesn't make one, tiny, miniscule, bit of difference to anybody. Even the Democrats that you supposedly elected to "end the war." They just used it as an issue to get easily duped people like you to vote for them. And it worked.

Robert

Sigh. . . Again point by point.

1. If you actually READ the thing, you'll find that the rights enumerated apply to US citizens ONLY!
Okay, I'll bite. Please post a link and page where it says that.

2. Since you've obviously figured out that polar bears and penguins live at opposite ends of the earth, surprisingly enough, perhaps you could explain to us what country Guantanamo Bay is in? Hint: It's NOT in the US!

Of course it's not. It's in Cuba. Where we maintain a military base. The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty. Territorial control. Hmmm. And Robert, just like other United States Territories, the Constitution applies. Bzzzt!! Sorry Robert, wrong again.
And BTW, I didn't interject the Polar Bear eats Penguins somewhere Robert. YOU DID!!!

3.So, chalk up "I doubt if you served" to my list. Or if you did serve, you were probably a professional private and spent most of your time peeling potatoes in the mess hall.
No mister military expert, I was SP4, 2 yrs in grade, MOS 63B20. Bzzzt!! Wrong again Robert.
I'm sorry, but this time I can't resist; Robert, you are such a jerk for spouting crap like this instead of sticking to the issue of you not keeping to the oath you took.

So help me understand Robert;
1. You took an oath, this one:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

And the so called draft dodging pissant currently in office also took an oath;
This one:
In accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now when said little pissant draft dodger VIOLATES said oath, you amazingly think that is perfectly okay, as long as you can recite some high and mighty cause.
Well here we have it folks; A sitting President by Proclaimation says it's okay to violate the Constitution and proceeds to do it, and YOU Robert, agree with that.
Knock, Knock; Is there anybody in there McFly?

No matter what liberal plot you try to blame it on Robert, that is TREASON.

And amazingly, you approve!

God Help America survive anarchists like you.

And don't come around with the bullshit that your 'taking orders.' Thats crap of the highest order.
Here's a list of some other folks that were just "obeying orders from a superior officer."
Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walther Funk, Hjalmar Schacht, Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Franz von Papen, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Konstantin von Neurath and Hans Fritzsche.

Familiar Robert? You are running in some dangerious company here. Why, for Gods sake? You want to be on that list too? The oath breakers and I'm only taking orders society.

You obviously don't give a damn about an oath you took and obviously don't give a damn if the president obeys HIS oath either.

The Nazies and the Commies did/do that.
Why do YOU subscribe to their beliefs?

I'm done. Gotta take a shower to get the vile stink off me. G'Nite.

[kevarc]

Sigh. . . Again point by point.

1. If you actually READ the thing, you'll find that the rights enumerated apply to US citizens ONLY!
Okay, I'll bite. Please post a link and page where it says that.

2. Since you've obviously figured out that polar bears and penguins live at opposite ends of the earth, surprisingly enough, perhaps you could explain to us what country Guantanamo Bay is in? Hint: It's NOT in the US!

Of course it's not. It's in Cuba. Where we maintain a military base. The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty. Territorial control. Hmmm. And Robert, just like other United States Territories, the Constitution applies. Bzzzt!! Sorry Robert, wrong again.
And BTW, I didn't interject the Polar Bear eats Penguins somewhere Robert. YOU DID!!!

3.So, chalk up "I doubt if you served" to my list. Or if you did serve, you were probably a professional private and spent most of your time peeling potatoes in the mess hall.
No mister military expert, I was SP4, 2 yrs in grade, MOS 63B20. Bzzzt!! Wrong again Robert.
I'm sorry, but this time I can't resist; Robert, you are such a jerk for spouting crap like this instead of sticking to the issue of you not keeping to the oath you took.

So help me understand Robert;
1. You took an oath, this one:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

And the so called draft dodging pissant currently in office also took an oath;
This one:
In accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now when said little pissant draft dodger VIOLATES said oath, you amazingly think that is perfectly okay, as long as you can recite some high and mighty cause.
Well here we have it folks; A sitting President by Proclaimation says it's okay to violate the Constitution and proceeds to do it, and YOU Robert, agree with that.
Knock, Knock; Is there anybody in there McFly?

No matter what liberal plot you try to blame it on Robert, that is TREASON.

And amazingly, you approve!

God Help America survive anarchists like you.

And don't come around with the bullshit that your 'taking orders.' Thats crap of the highest order.
Here's a list of some other folks that were just "obeying orders from a superior officer."
Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walther Funk, Hjalmar Schacht, Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Franz von Papen, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Konstantin von Neurath and Hans Fritzsche.

Familiar Robert? You are running in some dangerious company here. Why, for Gods sake? You want to be on that list too? The oath breakers and I'm only taking orders society.

You obviously don't give a damn about an oath you took and obviously don't give a damn if the president obeys HIS oath either.

The Nazies and the Commies did/do that.
Why do YOU subscribe to their beliefs?

I'm done. Gotta take a shower to get the vile stink off me. G'Nite.

Forget your meds?

[rgarber]

Vince, you ought to take a chill pill. Point by point, you're nauseating loud as of late and your incredible spelling/grammar issues make Bush look like a Harvard graduate. Talk about diarrhea of the keyboard, your foaming is so loud we can hear you upstairs in the other forums. Heck, I can hear you clear out at 3dtrains forum. Just chill, enjoy life or go back to bed. I find your lack of respect disturbing *makes Darth Vadar finger grip*. Let me spell it out to you plainly since you have figured this place out yet. Nobody is listening. Nobody cares. Get it? Nobody. Don't you got a route to work on?

[Andy J]

Groan*



Sigh*

[Paul1953]

"Nobody is listening. Nobody cares."... with apologies to George Carlin, mayhaps?

I'm enjoying this immensely!

Dissent is treason? wow!

[rpicardi1]

Dissent is treason? wow!

Only if it gives information and support to the enemy or attempts to destroy military morale, which then increases the danger to our soldiers and civilians at home, abroad, or in a combat zone.

[Vince]

"Nobody is listening. Nobody cares."... with apologies to George Carlin, mayhaps?

I'm enjoying this immensely!

Dissent is treason? wow!

I don't call failing to hold to the Constitution dissent Paul, I call it High Treason.

And yes Richard, I really gotta get back to building. It was the Polar Bears and Penguins that got to me.

[Vince]

Back on subject:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-historys-lessons-and-gun-rights/

Robert

Interesting article. Thnx for the link.

Finished reading it. Pretty much neo-con diarrhea of the keyboard as Garber puts it. I like that lable!

[jtr1962]

And yes Richard you're right, I really gotta get back to building. It was the Polar Bears and Penguins that got to me.

Why not use that as inspiration to build the Alaska Railroad? Sorry, but I just had to get that in!

[rdamurphy]

Well, with all the bluster and screaming, Vince, you still haven't told us anything that anyone has done that's illegal or un-Constitutional, and regardless of your ranting, he wasn't a "draft-dodger," he was a pilot in the Texas National Guard, and spent over a year on active duty to go to pilot's training. Oddly enough, he spent more actual time on active duty than John Kerry did... And he's certainly spent more time on duty than any Democrat running for President this year...

Now. Do you want to talk about John McCain's military experience?

Robert

[Paul1953]

http://www.usvetdsp.com/