I am voting for Obama

[Manedwolf]

Agreed.

If we were truly drunk with power, we've have long ago thrown off any lingering pretext of caring what the rest of the world thought and would act unilaterally on every issue such that it benefitted the US and ONLY the US.

Don't like it?

Mind if we test fire a nuke on your capital city?

You do mind?

Tough crap, we're the United States and we're drunk with power...


Actually, I would MUCH prefer a United States like that.

I get really sick of hearing people on Monday screaming "The United States is being a bully and overstepping its boundaries" and on Tuesday, after a typhoon, earthquake, etc., strips that nation bare, the same people are screaming "The United States isn't helping me!"

If we're this all-powerful empire, where's our $1 oil? Where's the quivering representatives of other nations bearing tribute so we don't nuke them?

If we're a powerful empire "drunk with power", then we suck at it.

[Werewolf]

If we're a powerful empire "drunk with power", then we suck at it.

That would make a great tag line...

[longeyes]

Actually, I would MUCH prefer a United States like that.

Actually, I think you have a LOT of company there, and we have only just heard the first rumblings of that.

The people who want to "cut American down to size" are going to meet a lot of resistance.

[K Frame]

"If we're this all-powerful empire, where's our $1 oil?"

Yep, you still hear the libtards screaming about the war for oil in Iraq.

The idiots are too caught up in their tag lines, protest marches and drum circles to figure out that the United States has 100,000+ troops in Iraq and we're not suctioning them dry.

[De Selby]

If Americans were "drunk with power," this planet would have a very different look to it.  Maybe the other nations of the world would be paying us tribute or, less dramatically, America would be paid back for the military umbrella we have long provided the free world, at our expense, or we would be compensated for the illegal dumping that has raped our domestic industries and the intellectual property theft that cripples us.

Backing Reason with force is not drunken, it is honorable.

My view of what the Unholy Five on SCOTUS did can be described this way: it's like telling the gangbangers who tearing up your neighborhood to go to their rooms.  It is a deluded combination of generosity-cum-arrogance.  The terrorists have to be laughing their butts off at our misguided "idealism."

Okay, but what is the reasoning behind allowing the government to violate its own laws by punishing people without first demonstrating that they are in fact guilty of a crime?

No problem with force behind reason-but what's the logic here?  I don't see how that's a good thing for anyone except those who want the government to have the power to eliminate anyone it wants simply by applying a label.

[pinoyinus]

Actually that isn't the case-doing this could potentially be an act of war AND a crime on the part of the Russians who did it.  That's clear from your example.  If this weren't the case, Osama Bin Laden could claim that his henchmen committed no crime in killing Daniel Pearl, since, after all, he wasn't a citizen of the state where they nabbed him and he had no rights as "an enemy of state" of Afghanistan.  Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

You're absolutely right.  Osama did not make any claims that his henchmen did any crime.  That was the case even after 9/11.  Instead of calling them criminals, he praised his minions for their "heroic" act.  Does that mean that they deserve no punishment?  And if Russia is to abduct an innocent US citizen and torture/kill him, it can be interpreted as an act of war.  And that's how the US govt. is looking at terrorist activities - acts of war - not criminal activity.  You cannot treat acts of war as you would ordinary US nationals who commit crimes.  Once you do, you would have to reveal your intelligence assets/methods in a civilain court where all documents are public information.  This will compromise national security.  That is what the left wants.

[De Selby]

Actually that isn't the case-doing this could potentially be an act of war AND a crime on the part of the Russians who did it.  That's clear from your example.  If this weren't the case, Osama Bin Laden could claim that his henchmen committed no crime in killing Daniel Pearl, since, after all, he wasn't a citizen of the state where they nabbed him and he had no rights as "an enemy of state" of Afghanistan.  Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

You're absolutely right.  Osama did not make any claims that his henchmen did any crime.  That was the case even after 9/11.  Instead of calling them criminals, he praised his minions for their "heroic" act.  Does that mean that they deserve no punishment?  And if Russia is to abduct an innocent US citizen and torture/kill him, it can be interpreted as an act of war.  And that's how the US govt. is looking at terrorist activities - acts of war - not criminal activity.  You cannot treat acts of war as you would ordinary US nationals who commit crimes.  Once you do, you would have to reveal your intelligence assets/methods in a civilain court where all documents are public information.  This will compromise national security.  That is what the left wants.

Acts of war that don't break the criminal law mean: no personal liability for the agents who carried it out.

Ie, if Russia orders an attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier, you can't arrest the Russian pilot and charge him with a crime.

Acts of war can be criminal too though: for example, if Russia ordered a secret agent to blow up a bus in New York, the proper response would be to capture and try the agent for his crime, as well as to respond to the act of war.

That is how these things have always been handled-even before there was a "left" in this country.  You can't punish people for acts of war that aren't also crimes; but you can punish them for acts of war that are crimes, provided that you prove them guilty of the act.

[roo_ster]

No, it has nothing to do with that. Had Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, or Thompson been nominated, we'd not be having this argument, or if we would be, I'd be siding with you.

Eliminate Huck from that list, and I would have been able to vote FOR a candidate rather than voting AGAINST Obama.

No one has ever mistaken me for a McCain booster.  But, I can tell the difference between a poor choice (McCain) and a disastrous choice (Obama).

[Perd Hapley]

"Suspended until the war on terror is over" is an abolition; there is no definite end point to the "war", and of course, you can rely on governments to use that to their advantage..."Hey folks, we're still working on security-no need for habeas to interfere with that!" 

That's funny right there, I don't care who ya are.  As long as you can read the constitution, that is.

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.

So, the .gov is supposed to know when these things are gonna end?  Ha! 

[Gowen]

I hate rewarding McCain with the Presidency after all the garbage he has pulled the last 7 years, but obama is a socialist/communist.  The democrats have let it slip that they want to nationalize the oil companies.  I know this country will survive 4 years of a disastrous obama Presidency, but what worries me is the Supreme Court Justices he will select.  These people will sit on the Bench for 20 or 30 years.  We have all been pins and needles over Heller case and that is with a Bench that slightly leans our way.  No, there is no way I can vote for obama.

[De Selby]

"Suspended until the war on terror is over" is an abolition; there is no definite end point to the "war", and of course, you can rely on governments to use that to their advantage..."Hey folks, we're still working on security-no need for habeas to interfere with that!" 

That's funny right there, I don't care who ya are.  As long as you can read the constitution, that is.

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.

So, the .gov is supposed to know when these things are gonna end?  Ha! 

No, the government doesn't have to know when these things will end-but it has to be in a situation where an end is foreseeable, and not foreseeably impossible (as it is in the "war on terror"). 

Otherwise it's not a "suspension"-it's an abolition.  And in any case, suspending the right doesn't change the legal principles that guilt must be proven and that torture is a crime against humanity.

[Perd Hapley]

Otherwise it's not a "suspension"-it's an abolition.

I guess you can keep saying that.  But it's still laughable.

suspending the right doesn't change the legal principles that guilt must be proven

Who said it does?

torture is a crime against humanity

1.  Can you rephrase that with a little less drama queen?  "Crime against humanity."  It's a step above "social justice," though, I guess.

2.  Failure to torture can also be a "crime against humanity."  But not in fairy tale land, of course. 

[The Annoyed Man]

"If we're this all-powerful empire, where's our $1 oil?"

Yep, you still hear the libtards screaming about the war for oil in Iraq.

The idiots are too caught up in their tag lines, protest marches and drum circles to figure out that the United States has 100,000+ troops in Iraq and we're not suctioning them dry.

More the opposite - whole lot of money going in and not much oil coming back out.

[De Selby]

fistful,

That you find it laughable doesn't make it any less true.  It doesn't appear that any further discussion of the obvious will help you on the difference between suspending for invasion or rebellion, and granting the government license to refuse habeas indefinitely to anyone for the foreseeable future so long as the government applies the magic label of "terrorist."

Can you rephrase that with a little less drama queen?  "Crime against humanity."  It's a step above "social justice," though, I guess.

That's not drama-that's the technical term for an act that is, at least in American and Western legal traditions, punishable even where no statute or noticed law prohibits the activity.  It's one of the things the Nazis and Fascist Japanese were charged with.

[Scout26]

<-----Captain, US Army Military Police Corps 1987-1998

Shootinstudent, Old School,

Why don't you read the following so that you understand what the Hague Convention and US Military Doctrine and policy trury is, before you scream "The guys we captured on battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq have to be tried in our courts."

http://www.combatindex.com/law_of_land_warfare_ch03.html

Oh, and how many detainee's have we hacked the heads off of ??

 

[De Selby]

<-----Captain, US Army Military Police Corps 1987-1998

Shootinstudent, Old School,

Why don't you read the following so that you understand what the Hague Convention and US Military Doctrine and policy trury is, before you scream "The guys we captured on battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq have to be tried in our courts."

http://www.combatindex.com/law_of_land_warfare_ch03.html

Oh, and how many detainee's have we hacked the heads off of ??

 

If you read my comments, you will find that I'm not saying they have to be tried in civilian courts.

They have to be tried though, that is the point.  I think there are very good grounds for trying combatants captured on the battlefield in military courts-but those military courts still have to provide minimum fact-finding potential.  This latest Supreme Court ruling was a result of the administration trying to escape previous rulings to that effect by creating sham "reviews" with no real opportunity for the case to be tried.

The administration didn't just try to keep them out of civilian courts-it tried to deny them any review, trial, or right to have crimes proven against them. 

As far as we know, we haven't hacked any detainees heads off, but we have without a doubt broken both the Military's own laws and the civilian laws of the United States by using what amounts to the chinese water torture on them.  I really never imagined I'd ever live in a country where people defend the practice of ramming a plastic bag down prisoners' throats and pumping water in to simulate drowning.  That truly shocks the conscience-even more than the idea that people can be jailed for life without any sort of finding of guilt.

[Scout26]

They have to be tried though, that is the point.  I think there are very good grounds for trying combatants captured on the battlefield in military courts-but those military courts still have to provide minimum fact-finding potential. 

Ummmm, no.  We detained over 400,000 German and Italian soliders here during WWII, and the only time there were trials was when they had committed an offense against other prisoners or their captors.  Not for what they had done on the battlefield.

This latest Supreme Court ruling was a result of the administration AND THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS trying to escape previous rulings to that effect by creating sham "reviews" with no real opportunity for the case to be tried.

The administration AND THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS didn't just try to keep them out of civilian courts-it tried to deny them any review, trial, or right to have crimes proven against them. 

Fixed it for you......

And no, we've been trying to establish Military Tribunals to have their cases tried, but the "America Must Lose" crowd has insisted that they to have criminal law trials in US courts.   And the SCOTUS agreed.

From   http://www.combatindex.com/law_of_land_warfare_ch03.html

80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.

81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.

82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death  because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.

Like a long stay at Club Gitmo.........Now how many of those nice, poor innocent people down there have we executed again ?? 

[De Selby]

Ummmm, no.  We detained over 400,000 German and Italian soliders here during WWII, and the only time there were trials was when they had committed an offense against other prisoners or their captors.  Not for what they had done on the battlefield.

Yeah-but they also weren't punished.  The Bush administration has completely rejected this model.  POW's have to be released as soon as their home governments surrender, have to be housed in humane conditions, have access to the red cross, have the right to receive mail and care packages from the other side, etc. etc.  There are all kinds of rights that come with this model that Guantanamo detainees don't have.

If you want to treat them as POW's, you have to accept that they cannot be mistreated, and that they cannot be punished in any way.  POW's are only POW's so long as they are innocent of any crime-otherwise they go on trial and get punished.

The "democrat controlled congress" did not create guantanamo-the Bush administration did, and this whole plan has been primarily its doing. 

[De Selby]

The update to your post is exactly the legal requirement I'm pointing to: If you're not entitled to POW status, you can be tried and punished.  If you are entitled to POW status, you cannot be punished.  Again, to make this clear, you posted an authority that says exactly what I've been saying on this thread:  if you're a POW and have not violated the law, you cannot be tried or punished.  If you did violate the law, then you lose the immunity from prosecution that POW status affords-ie, law breakers are not immune, so if the government so chooses, it may try them and punish them where it would otherwise (due to POW rules) be prohibited from imposing any punishment at all.

Again, I don't know if anyone's been killed at Guantanamo-but certainly people have been tortured in violation of the laws of governing the armed forces, and the laws governing citizens of the United States.  Torture is a crime under every legal regime that considers the subject.

One more edit:

And no, we've been trying to establish Military Tribunals to have their cases tried, but the "America Must Lose" crowd has insisted that they to have criminal law trials in US courts

Uh, that is not what the Supreme Court said.  Not even close.

[Scout26]

SS,

I guess you failed to read the parts 80 and 81 in the Law of Land Warfare that states that they are NOT EPW's.

And it says you MAY be tried and punished, not you MUST be tried.


 

but certainly people have been tortured in violation of the laws of governing the armed forces, and the laws governing citizens of the United States.   

Ummm wrong again.  When several of the current Democrats *cough* Nancy Pelosi *cough* were given a briefing about Gitmo and Waterboarding.

Here's an article about it from that Stalwart Founding Member of the VRWC, the Washingate Pest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of "all aspects of the detention and interrogation program." (By Charles Dharapak -- Associated Press)

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general.

GOP lawmakers and Bush administration officials have previously said members of Congress were well informed and were supportive of the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques. But the details of who in Congress knew what, and when, about waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that is the most extreme and widely condemned interrogation technique -- have not previously been disclosed.

U.S. law requires the CIA to inform Congress of covert activities and allows the briefings to be limited in certain highly sensitive cases to a "Gang of Eight," including the four top congressional leaders of both parties as well as the four senior intelligence committee members. In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings.

It only became "torture" when it became another way to beat up GWB.   

[De Selby]

And it says you MAY be tried and punished, not you MUST be tried.

Uh, yeah-that's because the Government always has the option not to prosecute.  Ie, if you commit a crime in violation of the laws of war, the government has the option to punish you where previously it had no option to punish.  What it does not say, and what has never been the law, is that the government "may punish" in the absence of a trial. 

At least, that's what all the legal treatises on the subject say, what all the supreme court decisions on the subject say (every opinion that's ever considered the subject, throughout the history of America-not just the recent ones), that's what every single Attorney I've ever heard speak on te subject say, including a fairly senior AUSA, and every professor of U.S. criminal and international law I've ever heard speak on the subject say.

There's really no legitiamate debate here: the law on this subject has always been clear-no trial, no punishment allowed.  The question is whether or not we should compel the government to follow the law; some think terrorism is a good enough excuse to ignore it.

It only became "torture" when it became another way to beat up GWB.   

Uh, sorry, but congressmen don't get to decide if someone is guilty of a crime.  We have laws that define torture, and here they are:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

1) torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

And here's the UCMJ law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000893----000-.html

Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Courts martial rule on the military definition, and juries rule on the civilian one.  Given the text of the statute, it beggars belief that anyone could read these rules and conclude that waterboarding is not torture.  That was the whole reason they picked Guantanamo-to escape the laws of the United States on this subject.

[Scout26]

And it says you MAY be tried and punished, not you MUST be tried.

Uh, yeah-that's because the Government always has the option not to prosecute.  Ie, if you commit a crime in violation of the laws of war, the government has the option to punish you where previously it had no option to punish.  What it does not say, and what has never been the law, is that the government "may punish" in the absence of a trial. 

At least, that's what all the legal treatises on the subject say, what all the supreme court decisions on the subject say (every opinion that's ever considered the subject, throughout the history of America-not just the recent ones), that's what every single Attorney I've ever heard speak on te subject say, including a fairly senior AUSA, and every professor of U.S. criminal and international law I've ever heard speak on the subject say.

There's really no legitiamate debate here: the law on this subject has always been clear-no trial, no punishment allowed.  The question is whether or not we should compel the government to follow the law; some think terrorism is a good enough excuse to ignore it.

Hence the reason for the Military Tribunials as approved by both the Congress and President TWICE.   But the SCOTUS has basically said "No, use the US Courts." which are not designed to to deal with enemy combatants, Ex parte Quirin (aka "settled Law") be damned.

It only became "torture" when it became another way to beat up GWB.   

Uh, sorry, but congressmen don't get to decide if someone is guilty of a crime.  We have laws that define torture, and here they are:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

1) torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

And here's the UCMJ law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000893----000-.html

Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Courts martial rule on the military definition, and juries rule on the civilian one.  Given the text of the statute, it beggars belief that anyone could read these rules and conclude that waterboarding is not torture.  That was the whole reason they picked Guantanamo-to escape the laws of the United States on this subject.

You right on one thing, Congress doesn't determine who's guilty.

Re: the laws that define torture.  Congress writes the laws and the members of oversight intelligence committee's determine what is torture, and in 2002 those members (including Ms Pelosi)  said that waterboarding is NOT torture. 

And you're right again, they picked Gitmo, to try to keep the liberals out of the way of winning the war.

[old school]

If we were truly drunk with power, we've have long ago thrown off any lingering pretext of caring what the rest of the world thought and would act unilaterally on every issue such that it benefitted the US and ONLY the US

This is not the context I was trying to convey. What I was trying to say is that alot of individual americans and many people on this thread are drunk on the power of the US government. They revel in the power of thier government over other individuals. And, because they enjoy this so much they overlook the peril for them when they give up their personal rights so quickly.

To be specific, we are willing to give up due process to get the "bad guys". Undoubtably, under the right circumstances, this can ease and speed the process of getting bad buys. Obviously, this surrender of rights and due process is being given with an implicit trust. We are saying: "please take our hard earned rights and laws away from us - we trust you to be fair".

This attitude surprises me coming from a group that do not trust our government from taking thier right to bear arms. Understand that the very same valid concerns you have about certain candidates and
people already in office in regards to gun rights should be the same concerns about certain government officails taking away our due process, privacy and rights. As everybody knows, it is much harder to get rights back after they are given up than it is to keep them when you already have them.

My main point is that giving up due process, privacy and personal freedoms is MORE DANGEROUS than even giving up gun rights. People on here seem to entertain the fact that if they have their guns, no one in the government will dare tread on them. Lets get real. If you say that, you are saying that you are going to shoot it out with the police, cia, fbi or military if they try to imprision you without due process. We all know that is not how it is gonna go. That cowboys fantasy is not gonna happen.

The other thing is that alot of people entertian the idea the having guns will allow militia to rise up and overthrow the unjust government if it gets out of control. While this is exactly what our founding fathers suggested we should do in that case, it is not gonna help the violated individual. Why? because it never has.

What happens in the real world is that some law enforcement agency comes and takes a citizen away. Family members are helpless, friends are surprised and strangers say: "did you hear about so and so? Yep, that is a shame". Whamo, that is the end of it. Eventually, if there is enough pressure, there will be a statement released declaring you guilty of something and that will be how you were rememberd. Close the book, story over.

[alex_trebek]

The other thing is that alot of people entertian the idea the having guns will allow militia to rise up and overthrow the unjust government if it gets out of control. While this is exactly what our founding fathers suggested we should do in that case, it is not gonna help the violated individual. Why? because it never has.

What happens in the real world is that some law enforcement agency comes and takes a citizen away. Family members are helpless, friends are surprised and strangers say: "did you hear about so and so? Yep, that is a shame". Whamo, that is the end of it. Eventually, if there is enough pressure, there will be a statement released declaring you guilty of something and that will be how you were rememberd. Close the book, story over.

Um militia members helped win the Revolutionary war, which helped a lot of people violated by due process.  And even if I am wrong, and you are right, how exactly has Obama proved that he will restore due process?  IIRC he did vote for the patriot act, and I dont know of a single case he has shown to restore due process, or even write/support a bill that does.  Historically speaking, centralizing and strengthening a government is about the best way to take away rights and due process.  Both candidates want to do this, so I don't see this as a valid argument for supporting Obama. 

"please take our hard earned rights and laws away from us - we trust you to be fair".

Rights are not earned, privileges are.  Which are you referring to in this passage?

y main point is that giving up due process, privacy and personal freedoms is MORE DANGEROUS than even giving up gun rights. People on here seem to entertain the fact that if they have their guns, no one in the government will dare tread on them.

I don't think this is absolutely true to all.  The means for self defense are the first thing an authoritarian needs to take before they can take anything else.  So it makes sense to defend said means at all costs, not so much to fulfill some SHTF fantasy, but to prevent step 2 from happening.

[Perd Hapley]

Alex, I think he means "earned" in the sense of "fought for." 

fistful,

That you find it laughable doesn't make it any less true.  It doesn't appear that any further discussion of the obvious will help you on the difference between suspending for invasion or rebellion, and granting the government license to refuse habeas indefinitely to anyone for the foreseeable future so long as the government applies the magic label of "terrorist."

Well, at least now you're drawing a distinction that makes sense.  Still, even an indefinite suspension for certain cases is clearly not an abolition.  So long as habeas is in effect for 99.9999% of us, it's hard to make a case that it has been abolished.  So come on, laugh at yourself.  It will do you some good. 

Crime against humanity is a technical term now?  Still wish we could use a term with less melodrama.