10-19-2006, 01:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2006, 01:02 PM by Darth Mortis.)
*sigh*
ok, i can see that the average age of the members of this forum is in the preteens, so i will go slow.
1) habeus corpus is the legal concept that an accused must be presented with charges or be released from captivity. this is a right that has been upheld for 700 years.
2) by allowing any law enforcement agency the right to deny habeus corpus, it allows the restriction that currently exists (use for terrorism related suspects) to be struck down quite handily by the supreme court and allowing ALL citizens (and non citizens on us soil) to be held indefinately without charges by the government
3) this is dangerous as it is the first step down a slippery slope to what has the potential to become martial law. (martial law is not a good thing, by the way)
4) cambodia and el salvador, as i used for examples, were both ruled by extremeist governments during their respective periods of 'disappearances' and the simple act of walking down the street WAS cause enough for the governments to arrest, torture and execute you. (don't argue about this one until you research it, i have little time for ignorance)
simply put people, the cause of concern is not that habeus corpus is denied to only muslim terrorists, but that it should be denied at all.
the whole world is led by example, and when you treat your enemy as tehy treat you, then no one gains anything.
but the most important thing to remember is that basic human rights are never to be negotiated. i doubt that this law would really survive a constitutional challenge, but the simple fact that with a very slight change of wording, this law would apply to a whole nation.
you only think that this applies to muslims, but any law that isolates treatment for a specific religious and/ethnic minority is unconstitutional on its face. remember that, as it definately implies that something more insidious is at hand.
EDIT: hitler's final solution was carried out as a means of exterminating the prisoners of war, political prisoners and jewish and ethnic minorities. one of the greatest misconceptions about the holocaust is that the majority killed were jews. this is not the case, although jews were the single greatest minority killed. infact, over half were prisoners of war and political prisoners.
to try and equate the holocaust to the current extremist movement is quite childish and not at all relevant. the best possible comparison would be the american revolution, with the jihadists filling the role of the colonials and the western world that of the United Empire Loyalists.
ok, i can see that the average age of the members of this forum is in the preteens, so i will go slow.
1) habeus corpus is the legal concept that an accused must be presented with charges or be released from captivity. this is a right that has been upheld for 700 years.
2) by allowing any law enforcement agency the right to deny habeus corpus, it allows the restriction that currently exists (use for terrorism related suspects) to be struck down quite handily by the supreme court and allowing ALL citizens (and non citizens on us soil) to be held indefinately without charges by the government
3) this is dangerous as it is the first step down a slippery slope to what has the potential to become martial law. (martial law is not a good thing, by the way)
4) cambodia and el salvador, as i used for examples, were both ruled by extremeist governments during their respective periods of 'disappearances' and the simple act of walking down the street WAS cause enough for the governments to arrest, torture and execute you. (don't argue about this one until you research it, i have little time for ignorance)
simply put people, the cause of concern is not that habeus corpus is denied to only muslim terrorists, but that it should be denied at all.
the whole world is led by example, and when you treat your enemy as tehy treat you, then no one gains anything.
but the most important thing to remember is that basic human rights are never to be negotiated. i doubt that this law would really survive a constitutional challenge, but the simple fact that with a very slight change of wording, this law would apply to a whole nation.
you only think that this applies to muslims, but any law that isolates treatment for a specific religious and/ethnic minority is unconstitutional on its face. remember that, as it definately implies that something more insidious is at hand.
EDIT: hitler's final solution was carried out as a means of exterminating the prisoners of war, political prisoners and jewish and ethnic minorities. one of the greatest misconceptions about the holocaust is that the majority killed were jews. this is not the case, although jews were the single greatest minority killed. infact, over half were prisoners of war and political prisoners.
to try and equate the holocaust to the current extremist movement is quite childish and not at all relevant. the best possible comparison would be the american revolution, with the jihadists filling the role of the colonials and the western world that of the United Empire Loyalists.