|
Jeff
|
One of those former Guantanamo inmates you love so much detonated a bomb in Iraq after his release: Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi.
You deserve to be on trial for giving the enemy comfort and aid along with Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan.
|
|
Douger
|
"For daring to speak their names inside the Supreme Court, we face trial at the end of May."
No, disturbing the peace or contempt of court are probably the charges you face at the end of May. Apparently, protesting outside, where all other protests are held, wasn't good enough.
There's a reason why your childish act doesn't play well in courtrooms. That's the forum for thoughful debate on the rule of law, and not for emotionalism
The justices know full well what your position on this issue is. They don't need your sideshow to drive it home.
And if they're good jurists, they ignore the emotionalism and refer to the laws as they're written to render their decisions.
Unless, of course, they're liberals.
|
|
so what
|
These folks are at war with the US and deserve no more constitutional guarantee of rights than did enemy POWs during WWII. We're not talking about a kid who got caught swiping a candy bar at the corner 7-11. These people will kill all of us if given the opportunity, and that seems to be just what you want to give them.
|
|
Bill Hubbard
|
" have never been as ashamed of my country as I am over its willingness to imprison without charge and torture with impunity"
OK asshat, you must have missed the news story, but we are at war with radical islamists. In every war, prisoners are taken and held till the end of hostilities, or until a prisoner swap is arranged.
Since the radical islamists do not represent a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, prisoners taken are not classified as POWs, but rather as illegal enemy combatants, and as such are legally detained at Gitmo, or held in facilities overseas.
BTW, for disrupting the Supreme Court, I hope YOU get to see the inside of a cell.
|
|
Joe
|
I've come to the conclusion that the Constitution of the United States is open for selective interpretation. The government disregards rights when it suits the government or appears to be the popular thing to do for the masses who do not understand their own government.
|
|
Joe
|
BTW, I'm not necessarily agreeing with the author or this piece. I'm stating my observation. I have no problem with terrorist being stopped from carrying out their distorted ideals. And true, Douger, as long as the judges aren't liberals, the courts are places of intelligent debate and no place for emotional outbursts.
|
Judge it!
