http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2557575

I'm all for locking up terrorists - who wouldn't be - but locking people up without a trial in a naval base in Cuba - that's plain wrong.

I find it a bit worrying that the US government can call somebody a terrorist and then lock them up without any due process - even US citizens. What's to stop them locking up anybody?? What is this Nazi germany??

The courts are perfectly capable of determining guilt or innocence and in fact due process is essential - it cannot be circumvented by executive priviliage.

So, good to see 5 brits released to be tried in the UK using due process. Now the rest need to be tried and convicted as appropriate not simply incarcerated indefinately as enemies of the state

Well it looks like Drew lost already, according to Godwin's Law. :D

But yes, locking people up in Guantanamo, without due process, is disgusting and wrong. In fact, I daresay Saddam did a very similar thing to enemies of Iraq (Granted, he also did much worse things to them...). But good for the ones who got released -- maybe they'll have an actual trial now.

yes if your lucky they will get ACLU lawyers and sue George Bush in a big messy trial right before the election, then the democrats can drag out the families and they can say how much hardship they have had and all that. COme on, htese guys are not a bunch of liberal college students who got detained becasue they disagreed with the government, these are hardened al queada and taliban terrorists. the way people can look past this boggles the mind. there are no US citizens in Gitmo, there are enemy POWS, and POWS are held in POW camps , without lawyers. tell me a time when POWS had access to American lawyers and courts?. Instead of demanding we get answers from the al queada terrorists we have people demanding we send down a boatload of scummy defense attornys to attempt to get them all off on technicalitys. do our troops have to start reading enemys the Miranda rights before they take them prisoner? These scum were not arrested, they were captured, taken prisoner in combat

Trav - nobody is saying they are innocent, they are just saying that it's bloody scary that the US government can hold people with no due process based on their own private reasons.

I'm very much a republican when it comes to economic policy but you'd have to be hardcore right wing (facist) to not be a bit concerned about the ability to abuse civil rights that the forced through patriot act provided to the executive branch. It's plain wrong - we live in America not Berlin in 1939

Originally posted by Travh20
yes if your lucky they will get ACLU lawyers and sue George Bush in a big messy trial right before the election, then the democrats can drag out the families and they can say how much hardship they have had and all that.

How can you take a subject as basic as human rights and see it only in political terms?


COme on, htese guys are not a bunch of liberal college students who got detained becasue they disagreed with the government, these are hardened al queada and taliban terrorists.

I assume you know they are all terrorists because you have interviewed them all and they have signed confessions to that effect. No of course that can't be how you got your information...you know this because the government TOLD you to believe this. Is it not POSSIBLE that the government told you this because that's what they want you to believe?


the way people can look past this boggles the mind. there are no US citizens in Gitmo, there are enemy POWS, and POWS are held in POW camps , without lawyers. tell me a time when POWS had access to American lawyers and courts?.

You are the one who is willing to overlook every principle this country stands for and hold these people indefinitely...because you KNOW they're all guilty. Since there are no AMERICANS being held it's ok right? Because Bush declared them to be "the enemy" that must be right because we know he's qualified to make that decision.

Instead of demanding we get answers from the al queada terrorists we have people demanding we send down a boatload of scummy defense attornys to attempt to get them all off on technicalitys. do our troops have to start reading enemys the Miranda rights before they take them prisoner? These scum were not arrested, they were captured, taken prisoner in combat

It's truly amazing how you can make such wild leaps of logic. Anyone who thinks the prisoners might have SOME rights automatically wants them to be gotten off on a "technicality". Defense attorneys are "scummy". People weren't arrested they were "scum" that were "captured" so they don't have even basic rights.

Happily the Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases that will determine whether Bush had a right to declare some of these people "enemy combatants" in the first place.

Basically there is a well tested constitutional right way to deal with this and there is a wrong way to deal with this. I am not sure why Bush has chosen the wrong way - I can't see what benefit there is to the American people to have civil liberties walked all over.

Terrorism is very serious, but so is the constitution and the rule of law upon which this great country is based. Nobody - not even the President is above doing things correctly.

The courts have been ruling against the government in almost every case in this issue because the approach is not only wrong but it is has dangerous implications to our way of life.

I think Bush made a mistake naming these people "enemy combatants" in the beginning. Now they're prisoners of war and have to be treated as such. If the war is declared over they would have to be released. They can't be charged with any crimes except "war crimes".

Being labelled as "soldiers" instead of "criminals" ennobles them, and allows them to gain support where none would have been available before. If a foreign country wanted to support their cause it could declare itself neutral in the "war on terror" and allow these people haven in their country. Since they are not criminals we would not be able to use any extradition treaties to attempt to force them to be turned over to us. Our only recourse at that point would be to declare war on the neutral country to get access to these people.

In short, I see no benefit to having these people declared "soldiers" instead of criminals, except it allows Bush to put them in jail without trial. I think his decision was very short-sighted.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
In short, I see no benefit to having these people declared "soldiers" instead of criminals, except it allows Bush to put them in jail without trial. I think his decision was very short-sighted.

I'm not up on my international law, but I wonder, if they were just criminals, if we'd be able to bring them back to the US to be tried. That'd be about the only advantage I could think of.

I too think they should have the right to an attorney. If they're really guilty than the government has nothing to worry about.

I think bush and his guys know how fucked the judicial system in this country is and how likely it would be for these guys to get out on a technicality. anyone remeber that NYU communist defense lawyer who got busted for passing notes between arab terrorists in prison here

? Even if they did get tried in a US court, and did get convicted, what would you do? jsut allow them to roam around in general poplation and raise all kind of anti-US sentiment in prisons? start their own little al queada cells? or would you lock them up in solitay confinement the rest of their lives and hear the cries of inhumanity start al over again? saying these guys should get all the rights afforded a US citizen is nice and cheery, but have you thought about it beyond a constitutional level yet?

The prisoners have brown skin. Guilty as charged. It's the republican way. LMAO

Dop

you have been reading to many of NEMs posts Dop. to him all republicans are NASCAR watching KKK backin' idiots who couldnt find their ass with a map. I think the bigest group of brainwashed idiots in the country are hard core democrat leftists such as Dop and NEM and shaman. they perpetuate hate and fear in the diguiise of spreading truth and peace. scum, your all scum. I dont care what you say about me, your scum, thats what I think

It's not Bush's job to determine that the court system is messed up so other routes must be taken.

In that case he should propose a costitutional amendment and legislation to fix the problem if one exists.

Originally posted by DrewM
It's not Bush's job to determine that the court system is messed up so other routes must be taken.

In that case he should propose a costitutional amendment and legislation to fix the problem if one exists.

LOL, ya sure drew. anyone can watch the news for 5 minutes and see that dirtbag criminals are released everyday on technicalities. after seeing the level of hatred for bush on this board its not to far fetched to assume that someone wouldnt attempt to free a terrorist on a technicality to make bush look bad. there are still people on this board that dont believe al queada even did 9-11, or that believe bush actually knew about it! and if you think that post 9-11 when all this happend was the time to propose a constitutional ammendment you are crazy. I dnot know about you, but constitutional ammendments wernt high on the list of priorites on september 12th 2001.

Originally posted by Travh20
LOL, ya sure drew. anyone can watch the news for 5 minutes and see that dirtbag criminals are released everyday on technicalities. after seeing the level of hatred for bush on this board its not to far fetched to assume that someone wouldnt attempt to free a terrorist on a technicality to make bush look bad. there are still people on this board that dont believe al queada even did 9-11, or that believe bush actually knew about it! and if you think that post 9-11 when all this happend was the time to propose a constitutional ammendment you are crazy. I dnot know about you, but constitutional ammendments wernt high on the list of priorites on september 12th 2001.

So what's your solution to that - a police state with no civil rights?

When people get off on technicalities it's due to bad police work.

I don't hate Bush at all - I'm quite a republican, just not as hard core are you may be. Based on your logic we'd be in one hell of a mess. My point is this - the ends don't justify the means.

Great Trav, just pick up anyone at all right off the streets and send them to camp-xray, uncharged and with no access to legal assistance. Hold them for undetermined periods of time, torture them and tell the american people it's all done in the name of homeland security.

Here's a bulletin for ya -- the people might buy that line for a while but when it starts happening to american citizens, watch the rebellion. See ya in the streets.

Dop the scumster. LMAO.

you guys are insane. when did i say to pick up average citizens and send them to military prison camps? in case you didnt notice these guys in cuba were captured in afghanistan and iraq trying to kill our soldiers. tell me dop, how many americans citizens are in camp xray and how many of those were taken from their american homes or on american streets? or is all your talk just crap as usual?

Travh - What about the kids ? There are 14 years old kids in Guantanamo. How do you feel about that ?

oh now there are kids in gitmo too! you forgot to mention the poor, gay, handicapped minority children being tortured there on a daily basis!

if there are 14 year old kids in guantanamo tell me, how do you know this? they just recently relesed the countries these guys are from, there is no way you know who is there. you are spreading propaganda. there are no 14 year old kids there, stop lying. if you are going to make stupid claims at least show some proof.

Astropol is correct

Quote from the Red Cross Web Site

Minors:

The ICRC has visited all the juveniles detained at Guantanamo including the three minors released on 29 January 2004. The ICRC does not consider Guantanamo an appropriate place to detain juveniles. It is especially concerned about the fact that they are held away from their families and it worries about the possible psychological impact this experience could have at such an important stage in their development.

I am sure they are just worried sick.

in case you didnt notice these guys in cuba were captured in afghanistan and iraq trying to kill our soldiers.
Not exactly. If they were trying to kill our soldiers then they would be tried for warcrimes. The one's detained have no evidence against them, only speculation against them. Whether or not they are guilty, they should be tried, as we have deemed fair in our country. I say this because they are being detained by our country. If they are being detainted by our country then they should have the rights that prisoners in our country have.

you know nothing of combat or war. we dont try every single enemy soldier captured for war crimes. were we supposed to try a million germans one at a time in american courts? did you know that in WW2 we brought captured german soldiers to america and used thema as slave labor? did these guys get the same rights as a guy who got caught stealing a TV? I dont understand how someone can force themselves to beleive that people captured by our armed forces in combat in a foreign country should be given a defense attorny and an american courthouse. how did that line of thinking ever appear in the mind of american citizens? oh ya, of course, radicl mad dog liberalism and hatred for the armed forces. how could I forget?

I know nothing of combat or war? You know nothing of grammar. I'm saying how it should be, not how it is.

When a war is over and countries reconcile the POWs are sent home. Look at WWII, the prisoners were released and they were given jobs here in the US. The German scientists were the ones that helped to develop the atomic bomb.

If you murder someone here, do you get a trial? Our justice system works on what we believe to be a fair system. If you do not allow people who we are detaining, access to this system then we do not have a fair system.
Look at the green river killer, he got a fair trial. Is he better than a Japanese/German/Iraqi patiot.

Originally posted by WindWip
I know nothing of combat or war? You know nothing of grammar. I'm saying how it should be, not how it is.

Great, a grammer whore, here we go again :rolleyes: I think we have established through countless posts on this forum that pointing out grammer or spelling mistakes as part of your argument only weakens your position. the problem with kids like you just is exactly what you said, you say how it should be, not the way it is. you are living in a fantasy la la land, not reality, you said it yourself.

Originally posted by WindWip When a war is over and countries reconcile the POWs are sent home. Look at WWII, the prisoners were released and they were given jobs here in the US. The German scientists were the ones that helped to develop the atomic bomb.[/B]

whats your point here? are you saying the war is over so send all the terrorists home?

Originally posted by WindWip If you murder someone here, do you get a trial? Our justice system works on what we believe to be a fair system. If you do not allow people who we are detaining, access to this system then we do not have a fair system.
Look at the green river killer, he got a fair trial. Is he better than a Japanese/German/Iraqi patiot. [/B]

where is the disconnect in your brain? these people are not people who killed a convieninece store clerk for cigarette money. they are not murders from here. they are lawless men captured in lawless lands by our armed forces who captured them in armed conflict, AKA battle. we didnt arest them in Compton raiding a crack house. the green river killer got a fair trial in the US because he is a US citizen who commited his crimes in the united states. John Walker, the american captured in battel in A-Stan did get a fair trial in the united states, and was sentanced to 20 years. your hatred for the bush adminstration makes you really reach out for any thread of hope to criticize him.

Originally posted by Travh20
the problem with kids like you just is exactly what you said, you say how it should be, not the way it is. you are living in a fantasy la la land, not reality, you said it yourself.
Thats what EVERYONE HERE IS ARGUING OVER!!! What SHOULD BE fair. The subject is '5 released from Guantanamo'. We don't have much voice on what actually happens, but we are arguing over what is wrong, what is right and how it should be. But I am not far off of what could be. You say it is fantasy, but it is close enough that Bush could easily fix it if he wanted to.

You fantasize that I know nothing of war or combat, which is far further from the truth than what I have been suggesting.

The problem with you old guys is that you all generalize and are stuck in your ways too much to change. Get a grip, age means nothing and you sticking me in a catagory does nothing for your case.

whats your point here? are you saying the war is over so send all the terrorists home?
Are they terrorists? Really? Well then they should be tried as terrorists right?
The fact is that we don't know. The ones that were fighting against us should be unless there is a charge against them.

they are not murders from here.
Why does it matter where they were from? Are we the ones who are the judge of whether or not they get a trial? Then we should either hand them over to another government, try them or let them go. Those are the rights ANY human should have.

The only other countries that would sentence a person without a trial for an indefinite amount of time are countries run by dictators.

your hatred for the bush adminstration makes you really reach out for any thread of hope to criticize him.
I did not mention Bush once in my critiquing of the prisoner treatment in guantanamo bay. Though he is the one in charge of this situation.

LOL, old guys like me htere are guys on this board old enough to be my grandpa.

Does that mean that your in that 'child fantasy' catagory too? Or is that still just me?

I think one of the problems is the whole concept of the US being at War. Congress has not declared war on anybody.

We are not at war with another country we are at war with an idea in the minds of fundamentalists.

This isn't WWII with clear cut nations at war - the US is not at war with any nation.

THe US invaded iraq to enfore UN resolutions - that isn't declaring war on Iraq. The US never declared war on Afghanistan.

So these detainees are not soldiers in the typical sense. They need due process. How could anybody deny them that and call themselves an American?

Just to makes things clearer in this debate, here are a few facts about Guantanamo detainees :

Who is being detained in Guantanamo Bay?

The US have imprisoned 680 men, including nine Britons and two British residents. Most of the prisoners are from Pakistan and Afghanistan. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says that the prisoners come from 40 nations and speak 17 different languages.

Why are they being held prisoner?

The US believes that the inmates, who were arrested during and after the war in Afghanistan, are terrorists. They are suspected of fighting for the Taliban or being operatives for al-Qaida.
The US intends to try the men before military tribunals.

What is the legal status of the prisoners?

As the US has refused to comply with international law, the men have been denied their legal rights under the Geneva Convention. The US has insisted that the men are not prisoners of war. It says that they have been treated humanely, in line with the Geneva Convention.

As long as the prisoners never touch US soil - and US courts do not consider the Cuban base to be part of the US - they are also denied the rights guaranteed to criminals under the US constitution, such as a presumption of innocence and a trial by jury.

Prisoners are to be tried by military tribunal, with even defence lawyers appointed by Washington. Sentences could include the death penalty.

Have the men been charged with a crime?

No. They can be detained for as long as the US government sees fit, without charge or trial.

What is Camp Delta like for the prisoners?

Prisoners are held in four camps, in small, mesh-sided cells, for up to 24 hours a day. Cellblocks are made up of 48 cells. There is little privacy, and lights are kept on day and night.

Inmates are allowed half an hour of exercise between three and seven days each week in a caged recreation yard measuring 7.6 metres by 9.1 metres.

The ICRC visits prisoners, and facilitates the exchange of letters between inmates and their families. US officials look over the contents of all correspondence with families, who are not allowed to visit.

Journalists have not been allowed access to the prisoners. In June, Camp Delta officials ended a BBC tour of the camp after one inmate attempted to speak to journalists.

Are children held at Guantanamo?

Yes, four children, the youngest aged 13, are held in Camp Iguana, a separate youth facility. The US government considers the boys to be "enemy combatants".

whole Q&A : http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1012001,00.html

Originally posted by astrapol2

What is the legal status of the prisoners?

As the US has refused to comply with international law, the men have been denied their legal rights under the Geneva Convention. The US has insisted that the men are not prisoners of war. It says that they have been treated humanely, in line with the Geneva Convention.

As long as the prisoners never touch US soil - and US courts do not consider the Cuban base to be part of the US - they are also denied the rights guaranteed to criminals under the US constitution, such as a presumption of innocence and a trial by jury.

Prisoners are to be tried by military tribunal, with even defence lawyers appointed by Washington. Sentences could include the death penalty.



What needs to happen is the Supreme Court needs to step in and determine the legal status of these detainees.

The Bush administration wants to have its cake and eat it too, with regards to these people. On the one hand it says they are "enemy combatants" so they can be denied the rights normally given to civilian criminals. On the other hand they are labelled "terrorists" so they can be denied the protections normally given to POW's under the Geneva Convention.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will feel around under their robes, find their balls, and make a decision so that these people can be dealt with in a just manner.

Supreme court? Like the same one that voted 5-4 for bush over gore and the same one that has a member named Scalia that duck hunts with Cheney while he has him under investigation and whose son was given a high-ranking government job after the 5-4 selection of '00 and the same SCOTUS that has a member named O'conner that, during the recount of '00, is on record as saying that they had to somehow make sure Bush wins?

That Supreme Court? Give me a break. They enjoy killing and torture just like Bush did in Texas as govenor. If they didn't -- they would put a stop to this atrocity.

Dop

dop shut up, if the bush-gore decision had been 5-4 in favor of gore you would think the supreme court was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and a supreme body of justice like th eworld has ever seen. shut your partisan yap and get over it, you will get another chance to try and steal the election through the courts when you lose next time by 1 vote.

as far as all the reports about gitmo and the prisoners, it is all very sad. It is a shame that we were put into the position to have to do such things. it is even sadder that no one seemed it fit to post any stat sheets on how the people, much less the prisoners, in Sadaams Iraq or the Talibans Afghanistan were treated. it seems people only want to criticize the US, I guess becasue they know they can not get a bulet in the back of the head for dumping on the US Government. (wild conspiracy theorys about the US Gov executing its civilians to silence them coming soo I am sure)

Originally posted by Travh20

as far as all the reports about gitmo and the prisoners, it is all very sad. It is a shame that we were put into the position to have to do such things.

Why did we have to do such things?

it is even sadder that no one seemed it fit to post any stat sheets on how the people, much less the prisoners, in Sadaams Iraq or the Talibans Afghanistan were treated. it seems people only want to criticize the US, I guess becasue they know they can not get a bulet in the back of the head for dumping on the US Government. (wild conspiracy theorys about the US Gov executing its civilians to silence them coming soo I am sure)

Yes of course...why didn't I think of that? We are completely justified in holding people without trial indefinitely because Saddam was a brutal dictator. :rolleyes:

Why would anyone post anything about Saddam in a thread about Guantanamo? Oh yeah...to change the subject away from the U.S.'s transgressions.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
What needs to happen is the Supreme Court needs to step in and determine the legal status of these detainees.

The Bush administration wants to have its cake and eat it too, with regards to these people. On the one hand it says they are "enemy combatants" so they can be denied the rights normally given to civilian criminals. On the other hand they are labelled "terrorists" so they can be denied the protections normally given to POW's under the Geneva Convention.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will feel around under their robes, find their balls, and make a decision so that these people can be dealt with in a just manner.

I don't know what you expect the Supreme Court to do. The Constitution does not apply to non-citizens in foreign countries, so they have no rights under our government. Our government gives the executive branch virtually exclusive control over foreign affairs, so don't expect the the judicial branch to do something.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Supreme court? Like the same one that voted 5-4 for bush over gore and the same one that has a member named Scalia that duck hunts with Cheney while he has him under investigation and whose son was given a high-ranking government job after the 5-4 selection of '00 and the same SCOTUS that has a member named O'conner that, during the recount of '00, is on record as saying that they had to somehow make sure Bush wins?

That Supreme Court? Give me a break. They enjoy killing and torture just like Bush did in Texas as govenor. If they didn't -- they would put a stop to this atrocity.

Dop

This is the most ridiculous post I've seen by "Dop." It is reminiscent of a Travh post. I mean, doesn't it make you blush to say the Supreme Court "enjoys killing and torture just like Bush." If it doesn't, then you're a moron.

As for saying the court is "On record as saying that they had to somehow make sure Bush wins," I'd like to hear on what you base that statement, since I have no idea what you're talking about.

I've read the Bush v. Gore opinion, and it has nothing to do with politics.

WAKE UP AND LOOK AROUND THIS IS A DIFFERNET TIME, YOU THINK THIS IS THE CLINTON GLORY DAYS WHERE OUR BIGGEST WORRY WAS THE IDIOT PRESIDENT BUMBLING AROUND DENYING AN AFFAIR?

Originally posted by Travh20
WAKE UP AND LOOK AROUND THIS IS A DIFFERNET TIME, YOU THINK THIS IS THE CLINTON GLORY DAYS WHERE OUR BIGGEST WORRY WAS THE IDIOT PRESIDENT BUMBLING AROUND DENYING AN AFFAIR?

Not at all, I think these are the Dark Ages of Bush and our biggest worry is our idiot president invading foreign countries and savaging the Bill of Rights.

then you have bought into the big lie. the lie that al queada and radical islam are no threat, but your own government is. tell me pagan, what do you think the radical islamists would think of gay marriage? what would they do to 2 men who got married? do you think the word "debate" would enter into it at any time?

Originally posted by Leper
I don't know what you expect the Supreme Court to do. The Constitution does not apply to non-citizens in foreign countries, so they have no rights under our government. Our government gives the executive branch virtually exclusive control over foreign affairs, so don't expect the the judicial branch to do something.

I would hope the the Supreme Court would overturn Bush's declaration of the detainees as "enemy combatants", or issue a ruling that declares Guantanamo naval base de facto U.S. territory.

Wow! Over the last 2 days I've been called scum, a moron, the 3 stooges, been told to STFU and other assorted and sundry names and insults.

My question -- WTF??? is this a debating forum or just someplace for the wingers to launch verbal attacks upon the lefties?

Man, what crap. KMWA.

Dop

Originally posted by Travh20
then you have bought into the big lie. the lie that al queada and radical islam are no threat, but your own government is. tell me pagan, what do you think the radical islamists would think of gay marriage? what would they do to 2 men who got married? do you think the word "debate" would enter into it at any time?

My post was this:

Not at all, I think these are the Dark Ages of Bush and our biggest worry is our idiot president invading foreign countries and savaging the Bill of Rights.

Where in there did I say that I believed Al-Qaida and radical Islam were "no threat"?

I didn't...you must have imagined it.

I think radical Islamics would think just about the same thing you do about gay marriage. They would say it's wrong, perverted, and an abomination against their religion. Their solution would undoubtedly involve the removal of a body part that I would not want removed.

I will say this Trav, I consider Bush a threat because his administration has already weakened my civil rights, and today he has made a statement that he wants to amend the Constitution to deny me the right to marry who I choose. Since the chances of me being directly injured by an Islamic fundamentalist are insignificant compared to the injuries threatened by Christian fundamentalists in my own country, I will fear the more imminent threat.

Let me ask you some questions Trav:

Do you think Bush is against gay marriage because of his religious beliefs?

If he is against it on religious grounds, isn't it wrong for him to impose those beliefs on the rest of us?

Do you think it's right for a President to suggest changing a document that he swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend"?

OK sorry pagan ,you didnt say al queada was no threat, but you did say the president was the biggest threat, which means al queada is not as a big a threat. either way, you are wrong.

I will answer your questions.

I do believe that bush does oppose gay marriage becasue of his religious beliefs, but I dont think that is why he, as president, opposes it. it is agaisnt the law for gays to marry. his job is to uphold the law. when courts and rogue mayors decide to change the law at will, something must be done. the ammendment is the way to once and for all put an end to all this nonsense and anarchy of individual citys doing what they want.

and its not like the constitution has never been changed pagan. to try and imply that this would be the first time anyone did anythign to it is dumb. whatever happened to the liberals and their vaunted "living constitution" crap? now that the "living constitution" might not benefit them, they dont seem to like the idea very much.

Originally posted by Travh20
OK sorry pagan ,you didnt say al queada was no threat, but you did say the president was the biggest threat, which means al queada is not as a big a threat. either way, you are wrong.

I will answer your questions.

I do believe that bush does oppose gay marriage becasue of his religious beliefs, but I dont think that is why he, as president, opposes it. it is agaisnt the law for gays to marry. his job is to uphold the law. when courts and rogue mayors decide to change the law at will, something must be done. the ammendment is the way to once and for all put an end to all this nonsense and anarchy of individual citys doing what they want.

Fair enough Trav, I hope you are right about the Presidents motivations in proposing the Constitutional amendment. You are correct in stating that it is his job to uphold the law, however it is not his job to propose new laws, which I believe is what he's doing. I think it will also run into problems in that the states are not going to want to give up their control of the marriage issue.

While I can agree that the Mayor of San Francisco probably overstepped his authority a bit, it remains for the courts to decide if the law has been broken in this case, and that's the courts' job. I think you are wrong when you speak of the courts deciding to "change the law at will" because interpreting what the law means is precisely their function.

and its not like the constitution has never been changed pagan. to try and imply that this would be the first time anyone did anythign to it is dumb. whatever happened to the liberals and their vaunted "living constitution" crap? now that the "living constitution" might not benefit them, they dont seem to like the idea very much.

I don't believe I did imply that the Constitution has never been changed, what I said was it's not the Presidents job to suggest changes to it. That's for the legislative branch of our government.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Wow! Over the last 2 days I've been called scum, a moron, the 3 stooges, been told to STFU and other assorted and sundry names and insults.

My question -- WTF??? is this a debating forum or just someplace for the wingers to launch verbal attacks upon the lefties?

Man, what crap. KMWA.

Dop

If you want to avoid being labeled a moron and enjoy a healthy debate, don't say baseless things like the Supreme Court "enjoys killing and torture just like Bush." That's obviously irrational and just plain disrespectful.

it soK for him to fly off the handle but if anyone else doese it they are destroying the healthy debate

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
That Supreme Court? Give me a break. They enjoy killing and torture just like Bush did in Texas as govenor. If they didn't -- they would put a stop to this atrocity.

You have an ironic sense of timing, my friend:

Supreme Court overturns death sentence (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a1y0x.EyIguY&refer=us)

For what it's worth, the president is supposed to enforce the laws of the nation. He has a lot of tools at his disposal to do so. Witness Kennedy calling out the troops to desegregate the schools in the south. I don't think a constitutional amendment is needed at all. All he has to do is call up "Herr Asscroft" and have him bring in the federal prosecutors. Schwartzenegger could do the same. An amendment is total overkill.

As to why Bush supports it: I honestly don't think he's that opposed to gay marriage, or at least not unions. It's just a gut feeling I have. But he obviously felt the need to cave in to the Ralph Reed Christian Coalition types to get their votes. Which may end up losing him more votes than he gets. I guess we'll see.

the nation is clearly against gay marriage, over 60% are agaisnt it. he will not lose any votes by being agaisnt gay mariage.

Originally posted by Travh20
the nation is clearly against gay marriage, over 60% are agaisnt it.
The nation is actually closely divided about gay issues. Most polls I see are close to being split 50/50, but in slight favor of "against". (The most recent poll I saw was 45/55 Margin of Error ±5%)
he will not lose any votes by being agaisnt gay mariage.
Dunno if he'll gain any either. Roy Moore is rumored to be running for prez under the ultra-conservative Constitution party.

Originally posted by Travh20
the nation is clearly against gay marriage, over 60% are agaisnt it. he will not lose any votes by being agaisnt gay mariage.

True, but a majority are also against a constitutional amendment - again, I think because of the mean-spiritedness of the whole thing. I don't feel like looking up polls, but as I recall, the majority of Americans want gays to have all of the same rights but want to keep the word "marriage" to mean "man+woman."

All yall's better keep in mind that if they can maneuver this into a constitutional convention, that effectively opens up all articles to change. IOW, they could reframe the entire constitution and there's nothing that could be done to stop it short of taking each article to the SCOTUS, one by one and that would take years.

How would you like to see the 2nd get changed of the 1st or whatever. This is the reason the constitution is seldom tampered with. It's thin ice so watch where ya walk.

Dop

lionel, I agree, I too think the gays should get all the rights and benefits that married couples get, but think that a gay "marriage" should be called something different. no one wants to comprimise though.

Dop, do you even know why a constitutional ammendment was proposed? ot are automatically against it becasue it cam eout of bushs mouth? dumb question. anyway. heres the deal. in the constitution there is a law that says that all states must recognize all other states marriages. there are many states taht have outlawed gay marriage. the new ammedment would make it so that one or 2 states does not dictate that every state has to recognze gay marriage. Right now, if Massachusets legalizes gay marriage, in fact tehy are saying that it MUST be in Nebraska and Arizona and everywhere else. the new constitutional ammendment would say that states woudl ahve the right to not recogognize a gay marriage. individual states could still allow it, but the state next door wouldnt be forced to recognize it if they didnt want to. there are 38 states that have passed laws against gay marriage. thats a high percentage. why should Maass and California be able to force these states, who in their own free will decided to not allow gay marriage? should 3 or 4 jusdges and one mayor get to tell the entire country what to do?