Neocon Judge?!

[itshappening]

wow, this guy is an idiot, yet he is one of the most senior judges in America?!

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

[homah]

That left me scratching my head, wondering what in the world his opinion on terrorism has to do with upholding the Constitution.

[itshappening]

yep he should be interpreting the constitution but he is doing so thinking we're in a war and the government therefore can do what they like.

[Grandson of Liberty]

wow, this guy is an idiot, yet he is one of the most senior judges in America?!

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Scalia=idiot? Does not compute.

1. We ARE at war with radical islamists.

2. The decision WILL make the war harder on us.

I'm not saying it was necessarily the wrong decision. The reasons can be debated as to the "why" we are at "war," as well as our effectiveness in how that "war" is fought. But we are. And yes, it is stupid to try to fight a war on a "concept" such as terror.

I'll be the first to say that the U.S. has no business picking up U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and holding them indefinitely. At the same time, I have NO problem with them detaining FOREIGN enemy combatants overseas until the cows come home.

Now excuse me while I go put on my fireproof undies. :)

[Kludge]

[no genitals here] :rolleyes:

[JoshLowry]

Scalia=idiot? Does not compute.

1. We ARE at war with radical islamists.

2. The decision WILL make the war harder on us.

I'm not saying it was necessarily the wrong decision. The reasons can be debated as to the "why" we are at "war," as well as our effectiveness in how that "war" is fought. But we are. And yes, it is stupid to try to fight a war on a "concept" such as terror.

I'll be the first to say that the U.S. has no business picking up U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and holding them indefinitely. At the same time, I have NO problem with them detaining FOREIGN enemy combatants overseas until the cows come home.

Now excuse me while I go put on my fireproof undies. :)

There is no war.

[Grandson of Liberty]

There is no war.

Neither was there (for us) on Dec. 6, 1941. Didn't mean there wasn't a massive force ready to strike. Let me be clear, I don't believe we should give up one iota of civil rights in exchange for safety. It's certainly a dangerous slope. But I don't believe in extending Constitutional rights to foreign enemy combatants. I know there are many who would disagree, but that's where I am. (I'm also not condoning torture activities)

Should we be out of Iraq? Sure. Should we leave the middle east alone? Indeed. But there are people over there plotting to kill and killing Americans. If we come across them while we're there, well, I have no problem taking them out of the game.

[Aldanga]

That disturbs me.

[AJ Antimony]

wow, this guy is an idiot, yet he is one of the most senior judges in America?!

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Thank god he lost his argument!

[Knightskye]

1. We ARE at war with radical islamists.

Neocon rhetoric. It's not a war; it's a police action. And if you keep turning people into terrorists, you can't succeed.


2. The decision WILL make the war harder on us.

The "war" should be ended, so that's a nonstarter. Plus, we should be following the Constitution.


I'm not saying it was necessarily the wrong decision. The reasons can be debated

Yes, sir, Mr. O'Reilly.


At the same time, I have NO problem with them detaining FOREIGN enemy combatants overseas until the cows come home.

What's your definition of "enemy combatant"? What if they're innocent Afghani or Pakistani citizens, and we hold them for six years without giving them a fair trial? Answer both please.

[Grandson of Liberty]

"Neocon rhetoric. It's not a war; it's a police action. And if you keep turning people into terrorists, you can't succeed."

You are right about that, but I'm not talking the "war" in Iraq, I'm talking about the truth that radical Islam wants to kill anyone who isn't Muslim. I also agree that the war on terror is a joke because you can't fight a war against a concept.

"The "war" should be ended, so that's a nonstarter. Plus, we should be following the Constitution."
No Argument there. The war in Iraq is bogus



"Yes, sir, Mr. O'Reilly."

Not sure what you mean by that


What's your definition of "enemy combatant"? What if they're innocent Afghani or Pakistani citizens, and we hold them for six years without giving them a fair trial? Answer both please.

My definition of "enemy combatant" is any non-citizen who has picked up arms against U.S. soldiers or citizens in other countries. If they do that, in the first place they are not "innocent civilians." In my opinion they are prisoners of war, and should be afforded the due process of POWs according to the Geneva Convention. If that means they stay locked up indefinitely, then that's what it means.

That said, we shouldn't be there, so it should be a non-issue, but we are there so it is.

Don't forget, even Dr. Paul wanted to go after the Taliban after 9/11.

My whole point is, that most of us probably all agree the "war on terror" is stupid, but that doesn't mean there aren't some pretty evil people in the world plotting to destroy us.