Does Hitler have American Constitutional rights..??
If “conspiracy people” are correct and Hitler never died, is Hitler “innocent until we prove him guilty..??”
Hitler was NOT an American citizen. To my knowledge, Hitler never visited America.
How could Hitler ever have American Constitutional Rights..??
It is insane and radical to presume Hitler is innocent until some “attorney” proves him guilty.
Oh yes…
Hitler deserves his day in court.
A military court.
But not by an American court, manned by US judges and a couple of lawyers who go by the name of “Johnson, Smith, and Bubba- We get you fast cash for your pain and suffering..”
This is exactly what is taking place, today.
It is insane and radical;
LAST week’s Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush- claims that: all prisoners detained at Guantánamo Bay are constitutionally entitled to bring habeas corpus in federal court to challenge the legality of their detention.
Far-left liberals in America are jumping up and down with excitement over this decision, but I wonder if they have truly thought about the long-term outcome of this decision?
If anyone who is NOT American citizen, and NOT on American soil, can demand- (during a war or conflict) Habeas Corpus rights in an American court…
Well folks, we have just turned the constitution upside down and slapped the founding fathers in the face.
Technically, because of this ruling, Mexicans could go after the state of Texas because of the Alamo. Surviving Mexican family members could claim that their ancestors where shot at by Texans and moved from their land. They could demand their day in an American court.
Any future enemy soldier could claim his day in an American court, because of this stupid Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush.
“The enemy” has NEVER had American Constitutional Rights, during a war or conflict.
The founding fathers were very, very wise. They spelled out exactly when you can suspend Habeas Corpus.
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
OK..
Most intelligent readers do not need any explanation of what the founding father meant here. It speaks for itself.
But, for the sake of the unintelligent, (and the far-left liberals who want to destroy President Bush by “hook or by crook”) the founding fathers called habeas corpus a “privilege.” They did not call it a “right.”
Also note that the founding father said habeas corpus could be suspended if America was invaded, (Attacked.)
Because 9/11and Radical Islam’s assault on New York City was the largest attack on American soil since the War of 1812, (including Pearl Harbor) I would say we safely fall under the guide that the founding fathers set forth.
I am not generally one to subscribe to conspiracies, however this one stinks so bad, it is hard to ignore.
The lawyers union pumps millions and millions and millions of dollars into the Democratic Party.
How high up in the Democratic Party are the fingers of the legal profession?
President Bill Clinton was a lawyer. John Edwards was a lawyer. Hillary Clinton was a lawyer. Barack Obama was a lawyer.
Trying enemy “war criminals” in American courts would generate millions of dollars for attorneys all over America.
For the legal profession, this Supreme Court decision was a gold mine.
Who will pay for this..??
You will.
Every “circus court” that tries these enemy prisoners will come from your tax dollars.
Who will the witness’s be..??
We will have to fly over to America every “witness” that the enemy prisoner chooses. These trials will go on for years. You will pay for it.
When it is all said and done, this decision will cost you billions of dollars. Yes, the Democratic Party and their attorney cronies have struck a “gold rush” with your tax money.
If it ended there, with Gitmo, we might be able to survive this bad court decision.
But this Supreme Court ruling sets a precedent.
If you grant enemy combatants, American Constitutional Rights- such as habeas corpus, during a war or conflict, anyone can charge America with any crime they choose.
Picture some future battlefield…
An American soldier receives gunfire. Using his handy electronic monitoring device that is mounted on his rifle, he spies two enemy soldiers. This brave American soldier fires on the enemy. He hits one member, but misses the other.
Let’s pause the battlefield action for a moment…
Technically, the soldier that is still alive could claim he never fired on the American soldier, and because of the Supreme Court ruling of Boumediene v. Bush, this enemy soldier could claim he deserves his day in American court.
This would cause the American Soldier to have to revert back to the 1700’s thinking:
“Take no prisoners..”
I ask all of you liberals; “Is this really more civilized..??” Is this what you wanted when you’re goal was to make President Bush look bad..??
“Take no prisoners.”
(Because the prisoners that you take- will sue you later, in an American court.) So it is better to kill everyone?
Liberals- this is not a video game that you can “pause” the action. This is a battlefield and losing means death.
As always, liberals do not think past the obvious. There is no future planning here, just quick, immediate results.
One of the guiding principles of the American military is that we DO NOT KILL everyone during a war. We take prisoners and give them a military court trial. Many have been released because they are no longer a threat.
I am hopeful that this decision will be revisited again in the future. Maybe less political, cooler heads in Supreme Court will think past this Gitmo situation and see how their ruling will effect future conflicts.
After all, these Supreme Court Judges have no authority on foreign matters and the military. Only the President and Congress have this authority.
(That is, if we listen to the words of the founding fathers and used the constitution as our guide.)
Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republican
“He, who will not reason, is a bigot; he, who cannot, is a fool; and he, who dares not, is a slave.” — William Drummond, Scottish writer (1585-1649).
2 comments on Habeas Corpus and a rat's A$$
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
I vote for the "TAKE NO PRISONER" way of handling this mess the Supreme Court has made !!
Liberals think that if they scream as loud as they can and as many times as they can that what they say becomes the truth. For over six years they've screamed at how unfair Gitmo is, how we're abusing prisoners (remember the Quran in the toilet - turned out not to be true, but of course, it was said often enough, so it's now a fact). How we're taking away the rights of the poor misunderstood Jihadists. Undoubtedly the Supreme Court also believes it to be true because it's said enough times. I don't think there is a single soul in Washington with a lick of sense left.
Part of the problem is that we these poor ACLU poster children the namby-pamby name of "enemy combatants" - we should have called them what they were - prisoners of war. At that point it would have become strictly a military matter to be dealt with under the Geneva Convention. But no, everyone wanted to keep it all neat and clean and sanitary and show how "enlightened" we are to not call them soldiers, because everyone knows these guys weren't fighting a war - they were just expressing themselves.