Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Weak Constitution? Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Weak Constitution?

    Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
    CWS, I'll repeat once again that I am not a conservative, I think for myself and if some of my conclusions are seen as conservative in nature so be it. I understand your argument but disagree when you refuse to keep it within reasonable parameters.
    Hey Frank, you havin' a difficult day or what?

    Where DID I accuse you of being a "conservative" and where do you come off telling me that I am arguing, or "refuse to keep it within reasonable parameters"?

    What I said, was that that there was a certain "Conservative enthusiasm for denying "Constitutional Rights" to anyone it determines is an enemy of the state". That statement is true in accordance with reported views expressed in the past week by some of the politicians. I did NOT mention you or even hint at YOU. Your only view as far as I'm concerned is that you want something done that focuses on these kinds of terrorist acts. My comments in turn was to express possible avenues and the challenges that they present.

    So, you made a post expressing your opinions, and I thought we were all having a respectful discussion about that. None of us belittled you or even told you that you were wrong in your feelings; only that there were limitations and concerns for treating this in a manner that might be somewhat discriminating based on existing legal rights. So where and how do you consider any of that as "unreasonable"?

    (I don't know what it is about this kind of thing, but it seems all too often you make a statement and if we don't get in line behind you, you get defensive and go on the attack and start telling us that you "think for yourself", as though all the rest of us are sheepishly quoting from the last hour of news. There is nothing that I've said [or that I feel] that was taken from anybody else... on the contrary, my writings are based on the knowledge that I have garnered over my years. I can be wrong in my perceptions, but rarely am I wrong in what I have learned from either my readings or my training. While I don't expect that we will agree on many things, I certainly don't expect to be drawn into argument misconceptions or over-sensitivities.

    To the subject at hand though: The Constitution and the laws that define our liberties, are done so to prevent any one person or group of persons from distorting them simply for the satisfaction of their revenge of the moment! We cannot warp or re-define our laws to suit the perceptive needs of the moment. We have done so in the past, and it ill-effects far too many people unjustly and to the shame of our nation and all of its people. The list of such injustices is long, shameful, and does not befit who we are and certainly does not meet the expectations that our forefather's defined for us in the Constitution.

    CWS
    Last edited by CWSmith; 04-26-2013, 05:30 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Weak Constitution?

      Too much to quote guys, so I'll wing it. Killavolt, I am not giving up my rights, and the government won't be coming after you and I any time soon. I said if an individual is identified as a terrorist, and this could be done by evidence of statements made on facebook, or other internet sites. Evidence in the form of video cameras or other photos of terrorist behavior in which the person can be clearly identified. these two scumbags were undeniably identified and tied to radical statements. I am not implying our government could indiscriminately without "proof" label anyone a terrorist, there would be a legal process.

      CWS, I mentioned once again that I objected to the suggestion that I was a conservative because it seems when someone disagrees with a liberal view, or anti President Obama view, they are not free thinkers, or dissidents, they are quickly called conservative. That said, I'm having a great day, and if no one here agrees with my suggestions, I am still convinced it is both foolish and counterproductive to extend Constitutional rights to terrorists. We can most certainly re-define our laws, rights and freedoms when the situation demands it! Remember the Patriot Act? as for thinking for yourself, PipestoneKid quoted Ben Franklin to make his point, McCarthism was mentioned as part of a fear tactic, and other references to the slippery slope were used to make an opposing argument. We are debating or for loss of a better word arguing a point of view, are we not? Above you suggest my denying Constitutional rights to terrorists as some sort of "revenge" tactic, I see it as a survival tactic no revenge intended. I also think denying immigration and college access to certain folks who may be islamic extremeists is not revenge, but smart. When I say "reasonable parameters" I mean sticking to the facts and not inflating things to suit your point of view.
      I don't believe there is any denying the fact that radical islamic terrorists are among us, and a certain number are becoming radicalized. I am not making a fear, or revenge based jump to suggest more scrutiny.
      No one has to get in line behind me, or agree with me, but I am allowed to respond to posts that I see as making flawed or misleading assertions. America is not in jeopary of a return to McCarthyism. America is not in jeopary of weakening The Constitution by denying it to terrorists in my opinion. I'm pretty sure our forefathers would not support cow towing to terrorist killers of a religion that calls for the extermination of nonbelivers, the killing of homosexuals, and beating of women!Freedom of Speech is not protected for morons yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness should not be extended to those who seek murder, maime and strike fear into Americans who do not swear allegience to their religion and God! When I see pedophiles who have raped children released back into the general public, mass murderers smiling in a courtroom, terrorists given the same rights as an American who believes in those right; I have to wonder who and what is "warped"?
      Last edited by Frankiarmz; 04-26-2013, 07:14 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Weak Constitution?

        I think part of the problem with US discussing issues is that you appear to take coversation as a personal attack on your views. No body said you were a "conservative". Nobody said you are wrong in your views, except to explain WHY we couldn't take steps that you think or wish we could take.

        Understand (please) that I'm all for doing whatever we can to "terrorists".... BUT how do you identify them? What parameters do we set up and what rules do we put into place that defines that "potential" in a person or a group of persons? We can all wish the utmost penalty, the most extreme of methods to locate, identify, and remove "terrorists"... but how does one do that without discrimination against the many who are not terrorists? Maybe you think that we ought to just deport or imprison ALL Islamists (I've certainly given a lot of feeling to that), as that seems to be where most all of the "terrorists" thinking and belief seems to be. Do you know any Islamists, Muslims, or whatever label we wish to use?

        The "slippery slope" that we have referred to is that indeed... because once you put a label on something like that, what measures do you take to ferret them out? Do we double the size of the FBI; do we extend surveilance to Mosques and perhaps to all centers of religious teachings in the process. Do we extend our phone taps and Internet surveilance to look for key words, beyond what we might presently do. And in that process, do we pick up key words used and then send agents to further examine, interogate, interview neighbors and employers, teachers, librarians, grocery clerks and maybe even ticket takers at the theaters that such "finds" might visit. And surely in all of this, YOU and I would be picked up... because we're talking and mentioning "bombs" "Extemists" "Terrorists" "Islam" and "Muslims".... could YOU and I then become a wasteful use of some agent's time and money, because we mention those things in conversation?

        Or maybe we do like we did in WWII... we just round up every single person of that religion, that heritage, that nationality AND PUT THEM IN DETENTION CAMPS!!!! (like we did with generations of Japanese Americans, back then). It wouldn't matter how many generations that were born here, or how old or how little, or how many had sons serving in our military. It wouldn't make any difference...once they were declared "enemies of the state".

        The conventional thinking is that the problem can be easily fixed with more security, with more penalty, and perhaps with changes in our laws that would allow "agencies" to go forth without all the restrictions of Constitutional Rights.... But how much harm comes with it? Worst perhaps, is that once the conflict is over, how do you go back? How do you give back to the innocent what you have taken? And how many "innocent" do you collect in the effort to extinguish the guilty. And IF the "Rights" of the many are cast aside, for the sake of finding the few... at what point do we give those Rights back?

        The fact is, you don't; and the fact is, that when the government presses too hard, it creates more enemies and often creates them for generations. This is what we have today, because a decade or so ago, the Islamist extremist, as we label them, were NOT our problem!

        And imagine too... which isn't at all hard, at least for me, that as we tighten things up a bit, what kind of backlash will there be. Hey, already you can't buy bullets because of the hoarding, we have vigilanty militia groups more than ever before, we got guys on national TV who are screaming of government's intention to kill rioters by the millions, to put armoured vehicles on every street corner, and to send forth Homeland Security Agents with millions of rounds of "killer bullets".... AND THAT, was before the Boston bombing!

        But whatever... don't take the conversation personally!! We differ in ideas and the point of conversation, or even argument, is to bring light to the things we think. It is rare that one's ideas are perfect... conversation is the process by which we build and change to something that can work in order to meet the challenges that that we see.

        CWS
        Last edited by CWSmith; 04-26-2013, 08:18 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Weak Constitution?

          CWS, I think it's part of human nature to take things peronally in these debates and that's not to say it's a bad thing to do. These are my personal opinions, they may be flawed and deserving of harsh critism. I enjoy the spirited back and forth, I find it stimulating and it's good to have ones thoughts challenged. We can continue to debate the broad or minute details of what should or should not be done in response to terrorism in our country, but for the sake of a happy Forum I will stop by saying, something more needs to be done to deter terrorism. I look towards a legal resolve that addresses the problem so that it is the terrorists that live in fear of death and loss of liberty, not free Americans Frank

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Weak Constitution?

            Frank,

            I couldn't agree more, that something has got to be done. In this particular case, I think we ALL need to become good citizens ans start being a bit suspicious, or at least aware of the things that we confront in our daily routines.... that alone may have saved the day for some, if not all.

            Personally, I was deeply concerned with the fact that this guy, with the very foreign name, walked into a fireworks store in New Hampshire and bought two of the biggest fireworks objects that he could buy. His criteria, according to the sales clerk that waited on him (as reported on CBS) was not what it does, or what kind of display it might present, BUT, how much "powder it had"... he specifically asked that question and wanted the fireworks with the most "powder".

            Sweet Jesus, shouldn't that have raised somebody's concern? Are we that stupid, unaware, or innocent of world events that such a person, a stranger with an obvious foreign name, would ask for and openly received, without question the largest fireworks "with the most powder"??? The girl had to be either an idiot or living in a cave all of her life.

            The other thing is much more innocent of course and in the excitement of the marathon would obviously be overlooked. But learning from experience, should we all heighten our awareness of people carrying backpacks in crowd situations... and especially be aware of such things being dropped or left and the carrier "walking away". In this case, I can see that no one would pay attention, but I think we had all better start being "on our toes". This is what the Israilies do and what much of Europe has become aware of. If we in the U.S. start showing a little more awareness, and also becoming a little more responsive to such concerns, we'd stop carrying backpacks ourselves into public events where we also should be raising suspicions. Problem with that however, is that there are too many of us who are insensitive to such things, and full well feel that their "Rights" are more important than public safety concerns.

            Security is always a challenge, but the first line of defense in many cases is simply public awareness and the courage to question things that just don't look right.

            CWS

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Weak Constitution?

              Originally posted by AFM View Post
              Its a slippery slope taking ones rights away even a terrorists rights for one day for any reason it could be you or me no we civilized societies have give them every right that we expect for ourselves give them their rights give them a cicvilian trial show the world that we are better and that our democracies are strong and cannot be broken by these loosers but once the trial is over and hopefully the accused has been found guilty no appeals should be allowed and the death penalty should be carried with 24 hours

              Tony
              Sorry TONY but what we need to do is send a clear message. Gitmo was not necessarily the answer but so too is letting the civil libbos loose. Take that piece of trash Julian Knight. How many hospital beds have gone wasted because of the money being redirected to his vexacious litigation ploys. Trial, verdict end of story. Let them rot in hell.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Weak Constitution?

                Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                Too much to quote guys, so I'll wing it. Killavolt, I am not giving up my rights, and the government won't be coming after you and I any time soon. I said if an individual is identified as a terrorist, and this could be done by evidence of statements made on facebook, or other internet sites. Evidence in the form of video cameras or other photos of terrorist behavior in which the person can be clearly identified. these two scumbags were undeniably identified and tied to radical statements. I am not implying our government could indiscriminately without "proof" label anyone a terrorist, there would be a legal process.

                CWS, I mentioned once again that I objected to the suggestion that I was a conservative because it seems when someone disagrees with a liberal view, or anti President Obama view, they are not free thinkers, or dissidents, they are quickly called conservative. That said, I'm having a great day, and if no one here agrees with my suggestions, I am still convinced it is both foolish and counterproductive to extend Constitutional rights to terrorists. We can most certainly re-define our laws, rights and freedoms when the situation demands it! Remember the Patriot Act? as for thinking for yourself, PipestoneKid quoted Ben Franklin to make his point, McCarthism was mentioned as part of a fear tactic, and other references to the slippery slope were used to make an opposing argument. We are debating or for loss of a better word arguing a point of view, are we not? Above you suggest my denying Constitutional rights to terrorists as some sort of "revenge" tactic, I see it as a survival tactic no revenge intended. I also think denying immigration and college access to certain folks who may be islamic extremeists is not revenge, but smart. When I say "reasonable parameters" I mean sticking to the facts and not inflating things to suit your point of view.
                I don't believe there is any denying the fact that radical islamic terrorists are among us, and a certain number are becoming radicalized. I am not making a fear, or revenge based jump to suggest more scrutiny.
                No one has to get in line behind me, or agree with me, but I am allowed to respond to posts that I see as making flawed or misleading assertions. America is not in jeopary of a return to McCarthyism. America is not in jeopary of weakening The Constitution by denying it to terrorists in my opinion. I'm pretty sure our forefathers would not support cow towing to terrorist killers of a religion that calls for the extermination of nonbelivers, the killing of homosexuals, and beating of women!Freedom of Speech is not protected for morons yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness should not be extended to those who seek murder, maime and strike fear into Americans who do not swear allegience to their religion and God! When I see pedophiles who have raped children released back into the general public, mass murderers smiling in a courtroom, terrorists given the same rights as an American who believes in those right; I have to wonder who and what is "warped"?
                Isnt that part of your CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Weak Constitution?

                  We must not forget those civil and constitutional rights that define this nation and its people. Every man, regardless of religion, belief, nationality, loyalty or severity of his crimes is entitled to due process. If we deny due process to foreign nationals and suspected terrorists we are no better than the rest of the world. We have to trust that the legal system will bring justice to the process. Denying constitutional rights should make no difference in the outcome of th trial.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Weak Constitution?

                    Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
                    We must not forget those civil and constitutional rights that define this nation and its people. Every man, regardless of religion, belief, nationality, loyalty or severity of his crimes is entitled to due process. If we deny due process to foreign nationals and suspected terrorists we are no better than the rest of the world. We have to trust that the legal system will bring justice to the process. Denying constitutional rights should make no difference in the outcome of th trial.
                    NHM, as you might have suspected I disagree. Extending our civil and Constitutional rights to terrorists allows them the rights and access to our legal system and that right there is what I think is wrong. They should not be afforded miranda rights and should be immediately turned over to the military if they are accurately defined as terrorists by some lawful, legal process to be worked out. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been severely abused, the boston murderers were cleary the people responsible. Why include them in our legal process when it is their soul mission to terrorize our populace? Do we really need to prove anything to these scumbags? We don't have to prove anything to the rest of the world, we need to send a clear message that terrorists are not entitled to the same rights as Americans who do not engage in such behavior. I personally do not trust the legal system, rapists, pedophiles and murderers are allowed to plea bargain, are released back into society and work the system that should protect us! Our legal system is overcrowded and overworked enough with local scum that we do not have to further burden it with people intent on destroying our pursuit of happiness. I know that may sound unAmerican, but it makes more sense than what happened in Boston!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Weak Constitution?

                      I think that song was popular in '32 to '38+

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Weak Constitution?

                        Originally posted by Pipestone Kid View Post
                        I think that song was popular in '32 to '38+
                        Kid, you should be more concerned about the choices on islmamic controlled media. That's where the real resides and not in an unrealistic fear based response which some would suggest. We obviously disagree with the threat, horrific incidences and what should be done. Hope no one mistakes my response as bashing your opinions

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Weak Constitution?

                          I don't disagree with the threat--just disagree on how it should be handled.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Weak Constitution?

                            Originally posted by Pipestone Kid View Post
                            I don't disagree with the threat--just disagree on how it should be handled.
                            I hear ya Kid! Just hope however it is handled, it will be effective in deterring the terrorists.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Weak Constitution?

                              Franki,

                              You mentioned in one of your recent posts (earlier today, 9:07 post #24) that we shouldn't extend Constitutional rights to terrorist. I absolutely agree! But, in this particular case, we are NOT extending this guy anything... he is already a citizen, and thus he already has these Rights under the same laws that give you and I our Rights.

                              We cannot just decide to take away the Constitutional Rights of a legal citizen. If we allow that, even in cases that we now argue, then where do we draw the line for future political decisions?

                              Should he have been a foreign national, then by all means he should not be extended anything, outside those Rights extended by the Geneva Convention and any Articles that might cover "terrorism". It's been too long since I sat in those classes, but I don't think there is much that defends warfare on non-military or non-strategic targets. IIRC, military action against civilian targets, unrelated to war production, is a serious violation of the Articles of War. But, how many times have WE violated that... and those violations are very much part of the cause which prompts these "terrorists" to attack us within our own country.

                              Look at the cases that have occurred in just the past few months. It seems we are constantly hitting civilian targets, and that doesn't begin to cover events where our soldiers loose it, and indiscriminately throw a grenade into buildings to clear possible insurgents, where our drones mistake civilian gatherings, or some guy simply gets his revenge by murdering civilians. Yeah, those incidents are realities of warfare and it happens in every war throughout history. From our side, we don't want to know or we dismiss it with barely a blink; but when those friends, relatives, and sympathizers decide to bring the war to our own shores, we somehow feel outraged and indignant.

                              Terrorism by foreign agents needs to be handled swiftly, but terrorism enacted by those with U.S. citizenship, require significant care or we might all find ourselves in jeopardy by those with the will and the political power to label segments of our society that it no longer desires. Such was Nazi Germany and Argentina, and many other regimes who decide to label "threats", real or imagined.

                              CWS

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Weak Constitution?

                                Sorry CWS, we disagree. You can draw such a comparrison between my proposal of denying Constitutional rights to confirmed terroists who are Americans and nazi germany, but I do not see it. Where we draw the line would be decided by our swift and hard working legislators ( it's hard to even write that without laughing myself sick!). I mentioned in a previous post that new technoligies and behaviors warrant new laws to meet the threat, in this case it is American citizens committing terrorist acts. I also think something needs to be done to take the reward away from mass murderers, such as never mentioning the killer's name. We don't have to destroy or weaken the Constitution to deny it to a specific growing group of killers. There needs to be a better deterrent, the thought of judgement under our legal system is not much of one. Offer suggestions if you don't like mine. Perhaps if found guilty instead of humane death, some sort of horrific, publically televised execution to impress the radical islamists? Too harsh, too unAmerican? Yes, but killing children and adults with bombs is not humane, is it? You can only turn the other cheek so many times before you are beaten to a pulp. This is more than a war of words and principles, it is real lives lost and destroyed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X