Letters to the Editor
chiefpayne
Published Letters: 326 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Indeed - ah, now who's going on opinion with no facts to support?
[Read the article: Supreme Court to Bush: You're not above the law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]rufus11,
"So logically they choose cuba? Great idea. They were not removed from iraqi soil. they are from afganistan, first off. Second off, they could have stayed local, and should have. This way the local laws would apply to them, probably death.
you telling me the us military could not secure them in the middle east? Seriously? You don't have much respect for the american military do you?"
I have a great deal of respect for the American military...but securing them in-country was an unnecessary risk. Further, there ARE some from Iraq there as well as from Afghanistan. I would have had no problem with them staying local but at the beginning, where would we have kept them local? Additionally, there was the issue of possible continual escape attempts externally as well as internally. Finally, WHO were we going to allow to try them? There was no working government setup at the time. The Cuban facility was there and close enough to the US to provide good logistics for support and far enough away to provide security to America.
"I'll tell you how I know these things, apart from being a former army infantry soldier. Because you republicans act liek these sheep herders are the most dangerous threat to civilization we have ever faced. They are powerless. The only weapons they have are the old stuff WE gave them (or the russian) decades ago. do you republcains really fear goat herders half way across teh country? Really? so much that you would sacrafice all our rights? Are they going to row over here on row boats?"
If you are a former Army infantry soldier, you realize that the AGE of a weapon is not as important as whether it would work or not and whether or not a person has the knowledge to use it.
"The nazi's they were to be feared. They had power and strength, realative to us. Teh russians. While i disagree with much of american foreign policy at that time, I can see the world wide threat. These 200 goat herders? You fear them so much you would sacrafice YOUR freedom. then you are a coward."
Hummm...toward the end of the war, Patton was told the Natzi's were broken. I believe it was in 1944 and Patton expected and got a war which no one else seemed to think would happen at the Battle of the Bulge. Point being, one cannot underestimate the enemy. The 200 goat herders? Well, we've seen 30 people released from Gitmo who have returned to try to attack our soldiers again.
"you may fear these goat hearders to the point of shredding the consitution. I don't. And I (and milliuons of other patriotic americans) won't let your fear destroy my country anymore."
Ok...so you believe the Constitution is being shredded. Then you can vote and I will vote and the majority rules...that's in the Constitution too. So be it.
-
re: cont.
[Read the article: Supreme Court to Bush: You're not above the law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]rufus11,
"If you took the time to read the dissent, you would know roberts suggests the entire habeus corpus context is relative and fluctuating. If they can take people they hate and move them to a black ops location, they can do it to me. The gop's labels are far reaching, as to who they hate and why."
No they cannot do it to you...because you are a US citizen. Granted they tried and it FAILED...miserably...because while Jose Padilla was found guilty of of all charges against him on August 16, 2007, by a federal jury, which found that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. Now granted he had been held for 3 1/2 years without a trial but when push came to shove, because he was a US citizen, he was given his right (FINALLY) of habeas corpus. And THIS is a decree by the court I agree with hold heartedly.
"I'm not ready to let the gop make that characterization. soon anyone who doesn't wear a camop hat and jacket will be labeled a terrorist and sent to a camp. I prefer to let the courts and elected officals make that call, not fox news and rush lmibaugh"
And neither am I...but then, I don't believe they HAVE done that.
-
re: last one on this
[Read the article: Supreme Court to Bush: You're not above the law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]rufus11,
"Because you are propogating without knowing what your talking about or even reading the ruling. I must assume you are a dittohead propogandists. who else would spend time tackling a subject they have no idea about? Who would waste their time? I have to assume you were sent here to stir up trouble. Divide and conquer. if you really were concerned you would know what your talking about, and would have read the ruling."
Sir, I know full well what I am talking about. I did read the ruling...I simply disagree with it. I do not agree with the idea that the government can hold enemy combatants indefinitely but I also do not hold that said enemy combatants deserve rights reserved for US citizens when they are not US citizens.
I believe they should be returned to the Iraqi government for trial and whatever that government has in store for them. And I believe we had to hold them until said government was sufficiently organized to hold a trial.
-
FINE then
[Read the article: Supreme Court to Bush: You're not above the law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Az,
"They. Are. Not. From. Iraq."
Fine. How about to the government of the country from which they were captured in...THAT work for you????
-
@ rufus11
[Read the article: Supreme Court to Bush: You're not above the law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The gop is done for 30 years."
Perhaps. We will see.
I won't make a blanket statement because I've been around too long and seen too much.
People go from Democrat to Republican and back again.
As unpredictable as politics is, I would never make an absolute statement.