Jude 2

For the 1st time since reconstruction Tennesseans voted in a majority to the TN House. The count was 50 GOP and 49 Democrats. For 18 years the same Democrat was speaker of the house. That same speaker conducted closed door meeting which is against state law when trying to force a state income tax upon us.

With the GOP having the majority they were looking forward to unseating this guy and putting a conservative in as speaker. Well surprise, surprise, surprise!!!! Well surprise, surprise, surprise!!!!

A small part of me is ready to take up arms against this pitiful government both in Tn and the USA. I'd imagine the FBI is about to come a knocking now.

Full Quiver wrote:I'd imagine the FBI is about to come a knocking now.

Well take comfort in knowing that if they send you to Gitmo, it'll only be for a few days.

DeWayneTN wrote:Well take comfort in knowing that if they send you to Gitmo, it'll only be for a few days.

And you'll have missed their waterboard theme park.

DeWayneTN wrote:Well take comfort in knowing that if they send you to Gitmo, it'll only be for a few days.

Innocent men spent as much as seven years at Guantanamo without charge, and some are still there.

Tim Elston wrote:
Innocent men spent as much as seven years at Guantanamo without charge, and some are still there.

Tell you what Centrist, why don't you invite those "innocent" men to come live with you when Obama releases them in a few weeks.

I might enjoy watching that beheading video.

For those of you lacking a sense of humor, that last part was a joke. Sort of.

Tim Elston wrote:Innocent men spent as much as seven years at Guantanamo without charge, and some are still there.

How do you arrive at this "fact"????

I doubt very seriously that you have any evidence whatsoever.

Sometimes it's just too easy.......

Gerald Creasy wrote:

Tim Elston wrote:Innocent men spent as much as seven years at Guantanamo without charge, and some are still there.

How do you arrive at this "fact"????

I doubt very seriously that you have any evidence whatsoever.

Here's but one example involving seventeen men: Kiyemba vs. Bush. Sometimes it's just too easy, isn't it?

Tim Elston wrote:

Gerald Creasy wrote:

Tim Elston wrote:Innocent men spent as much as seven years at Guantanamo without charge, and some are still there.

How do you arrive at this "fact"????

I doubt very seriously that you have any evidence whatsoever.

Here's but one example involving seventeen men: Kiyemba vs. Bush. Sometimes it's just too easy, isn't it?

You are no different than we, Tim.

You pick and choose the information you wish to believe.

I seriously doubt that Inocent men would end up prisoners in "Gitmo".

I even challenge the belief that foreigners have "constitutional rights".

Since when do non-US citizens have US constitution rights??

What I meant was that every time I throw the line out, the fish always bite. You follow the script very well.

Gerald Creasy wrote: I even challenge the belief that foreigners have "constitutional rights".

Since when do non-US citizens have US constitution rights??

Since the 14th Amendment was passed there has been some extension of rights under the constitution to non-citizens. In 1886, in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, where the appellant had been convicted in San Fran of operating an illegal laundry business and was fined $10 or, in the alternative, sentenced to 10 days in jail. The complaint was that his jailing, and many other Chinese citizens living and operating hundreds of laundries in SF, came after he'd been in compliance with all laws about laundries but the city refused to renew his license and the licenses of other Chinese laundries in SF while renewing the laundy business licenses of American citizens in SF who were in no better compliance with all fire and safety rules than Yick Wo.

Here's what the Court said that matters to your question: "The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."

That doesn't mean a blanket application of all of the rights of the constitution to non-citizens; there are exceptions and reasons for them that exist within the document itself.

Tim Elston wrote:Innocent men spent as much as seven years at Guantanamo without charge, and some are still there.

True.. But it's hard to tell when they are picked up on the battlefield fighting against our soldiers.

But wait didn't Gitmo release some they thought were innocent? Oh yea.. but most of those guys were faking and RETURNED to terror.. even after signing a "non return terror clause" on release. Sad.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 71,00.html

Here's the deal with closing down GITMO.

From now on there will not be any POWs or enemy combatants taken prisoner. Now they will all be shot on sight thanks to OBAMA and the dems. How's that for justice?

Full Quiver wrote:From now on there will not be any POWs or enemy combatants taken prisoner. Now they will all be shot on sight thanks to OBAMA and the dems. How's that for justice?

Terrorists and suspected terrorists will be taken into custody and detained in prisons, if they aren't killed operationally. Guantanamo does not have a monopoly on either civilian or military detention. And conventional prisons will provide jurisdictional protections for those taken prisoner, whether innocent or guilty.

American courts are for American citizens. Where does the constitution say to gather criminals or suspected criminals from other lands and bring them here for justice?