King George
 

Perhaps we should put a little historical perspective on this. While I personally believe this man is entitled to all rights and protections that the law allows him as a citizen, this is by no means a historical first. Well, perhaps in one way it is. We are only dealing with one person here. In 1942, the ever exalted President Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed Executive Order 9102 into action and imprisoned over 130,000 individuals of Japanese decent. Over 77,000 of these individual were U.S. citizens. These people were never charged, most of the 130,000 plus individuals were not even suspected of any crimes against our country. Many of these lost homes, businesses, etc... by the stroke of a Democrats pen.

Yes it happened and it was a sad part of history. Doesn't mean Bush should get the same libertys since a Democrat did it in the past.

We are looking at one person here. One person, who is suspected of acts against the United States, who could be charged, compared to over 130,000 who were never charged, nor even really suspected. I don't agree with them holding him this way, but trying to paint Bush as a bad guy here is laughable. I say charge the guy, but I really don’t know all the angles of the law they are applying here, do you?

Not once did I say I claimed to know all the angles of the law. Do you? I didn't start this thread to say which president was worse thats not the issue. One person or 130,000 people it still is trampling on citizens rights. So if Bush did it to 1 or 2 people its ok at long as its not 100K?

No, I said that I do not know all the angles. Yes, I think it is important to keep this in perspective. This individual is suspected, they were not. This individual is more than likely chargeable right now, they were not. I think they should charge this guy, but the powers to be do not see it that way for whatever reason. It's their call. Perhaps the courts will intervene. If they let this guy go without charging him, I’ll be the first to speak out against this as a misdeed. Like I said, they should charge him now. In my opinion, posting a satire concerning the president should be open to a historical perspective and criticism. The god of American liberalism, FDR, destroyed the lives of a multitude, GWB has one citizen held. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it is certainly not the first, nor even close to the worse.

I love these threads....*sits back with a bowl of popcorn for the debate*

Are y'all talking bout Padilla?

The way i feel about it is this. If you take up arms against the government of a nation, you then forfeit the rights guaranteed to you by that government.

The same would have gone for the founding fathers(although in no way should American Al-Qaeda members be compared to the patriots that founded this country) Once they took up arms against the King of England i would think that they had forfeited their rights under the English system. I'm not a tremendous scholar of history, so i couldn't speak for what those rights were.

There is a vast difference in protesting against government actions that you disagree with and taking up arms against it. That is your right as an American to speak out about your government. If you take up with terrorists and plan to kill innocent Americans i believe you forfeit all rights as an American citizen and should theretofore be treated as an enemy combatant.

Kitso
KS 361

Bush should sell pardons like Clinton.

I don't know all the angles of this story, but I do know of something called the Constitution. If the "founding fathers" wanted a king they would've installed one.

Interestingly enough, I believe that after the Revolutionary War, a number of the founding fathers went to George Washington and tried to talk him into taking the title of "King."

Thankfully, he declined.

Personally, I believe that Kitso said above what it might have taken me a page and a half to state.

To wit:

"There is a vast difference in protesting against government actions that you disagree with and taking up arms against it."

The simple question is whether we're dealing with someone who is protesting -- or a traitor.

The difference is that Roosevelt took 130K people regardless of their activities and threw them in jail just for being of Japanese descent.

The Bush administration is arresting people in battlefields, amidst treasure troves of evidence and throwing them in prison. Personally, I think we should deal with traitors the way the founding fathers intended us to. They should be hanged.

The guy in question though was arrested in the US on the belief he was planning a dirty bomb. Is the United States considered a battlefield now so Bush can decide to arrest anyone with out a trial as long as its about terrorism? Suprized he hasn't call Howard Dean a terrorist, go way to knock out some compitition. :p

I've felt this way for years, especially in light of the Walker, Ames, Aldrich, and other treasonous bastages. The only explanation I can get (from someone I know in the CIA) is that a fair trial would compromise state secrets even more.

Darn shame someone in their cellblocks doesn't get a dose of patriotism, though, and "take care" of things...