A question on the constitution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhensley

As far as letting folks in this country that wants to kill me. Maybe we should ask the people in the world trade center or the people who lost there heads or burned alive.

---

So, if I am understanding correctly, you are suggesting that US doesn't get involved - and the folks at the WTC who survived and the friends and relatives of those who didn't can go find those responsible wherever they are and do as they please with them? Basically sort of an anarchy and vigilante justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhensley

As far as the president I think he should have some kind of leadership ability. I wouldn't follow this man to the bathroom much less to war. (again this is my opinion or am I not allowed that)

---

Well, yes, I understand you passionately dislike the guy, but that's not the question here, is it? If you were the only person eligible to elect the president of this country you'd have whoever you want. But as it is there are upwards of 200 million people who get to judge people's leadership abilities and this time around the majority does not agree with you. You can complain all you want, but that's the system that the founding fathers set in the constitution and if you don't like the results you really ought to blame them, or better yet offer something that would work better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhensley

The constitution was written so any one could understand and so was the amendments. what's been added I really don't think so.

---

Well here's the text of the constitution with all 27 amendments that were added afterwards, most of them before you were born:
U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

I'd say the second one must be one of the worst since its meaning keeps being debated to this very day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhensley

It appears I may have struck a nerve I assure you I mint no harm just voicing my opinion. Agree or disagree either is ok buy me. Have a good day.

---

I don't think anybody means any harm here, and I like asking questions, particularly when something is implied to exist yet it isn't shown.

What I'm saying is my opinion. What happens in war is war. and for me it would be what ever it takes to win because unlike playing a sporting game in war it's not how you play the game but winning that counts. now that's just my opinion. Now Obama. I voted. that gives me the right to say if I like him or not. those that didn't vote should not say any thing. Now whether I voted for him or not doesn't matter. I don't think he's doing a good job. I really hope the next one does better. that's my opinion and I voice it a lot. that's my right. ( I like arguing as you can probably tell. ) As far as the second amendment goes I think next to the first it is most important. without it you couldn't keep the first. I was taught in school that first you control the government then disarm the people after that well Russia comes to mind. I am a product of the cold war which from what I'm seeing in the news is quickly heating back up. A lot of my family served in the Revolutionary war Civil war WW1 WW2 Korea Viet Nam. I served from 69 to 73. Now whether I'm right or wrong I will say what I think. I have that right. I think everyone should. Some one a long time ago said I my not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it.
I wasn't really implying just stating my opinion and we all know that opinions are like but holes everyone has one. There I go stating my opinion again:rofl2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhensley

War is not clean as you put it anyway. A terrible waste of life. It's unfortunate everyone can't just sit down at a keyboard and just talk. There is a phrase in a book I have read that said that there will always be war. I can't quote chapter and verse but it appears to be true.

---

No war is not clean but it does have rules that combatants are supposed to follow like the Geneva Convention. Peoples attitude shift in times of war.

There was a large outcry against the German bombing of civilians during the Spanish Civil War, Guernica, and at the bombing of Rotterdam and Warsaw at the beginning of WWII. That attitude miraculously shifted to supporting the Allied bombing campaign of German and Japanese cities later in the war. The massive destruction of fire bombing Hamburg and Dresden are standouts as well as the near obliteration of Tokyo by fire bombing. That shift in attitude ultimately lead to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being palatable and justifiable to the public.

No war is not clean and ultimately means giving more and better than you got. Nobody is clean or blameless in the end.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

The main problem with Gitmo is not that the US went after terrorists.
The problem with Gitmo is that the US simply kidnapped anyone who they 'thought' might be a terrorists, and then held them without legal process and tortured a good number of them, just in case.
Many innocents were captured, and then tortured or sent out for torture.
Due process and laws are supposed to make sure innocents have protection against a government.
Torturing and kidnapping innocents is wrong. Period. No matter who does it.

---

And this is what I am talking about when I made the "aid and comfort" reference. The US makes NO friends when it behaves in a manner that is contrary to the laws and Constitution upon which it was founded. I forget the Senator who said that the Constitution was not a suicide pact but, due respect, yes it is. At least, if it's supposed to MEAN something.

I have always held that the Constitution of the United states ranks right up there with the Magna Carta as one of the seminal documents about human liberty. Well, liberty comes at a cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobH

No war is not clean but it does have rules that combatants are supposed to follow like the Geneva Convention. Peoples attitude shift in times of war.

There was a large outcry against the German bombing of civilians during the Spanish Civil War, Guernica, and at the bombing of Rotterdam and Warsaw at the beginning of WWII. That attitude miraculously shifted to supporting the Allied bombing campaign of German and Japanese cities later in the war. The massive destruction of fire bombing Hamburg and Dresden are standouts as well as the near obliteration of Tokyo by fire bombing. That shift in attitude ultimately lead to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being palatable and justifiable to the public.

No war is not clean and ultimately means giving more and better than you got. Nobody is clean or blameless in the end.

Bob

---

Your Right, War is not clean. War is War and I for one wish it didn't exist. But it does and if I have to fight a war I would fight to win. In WW2 who were the ultimate bad guys. who were the aggressors. What rules did they follow. I see what happen in the concentration camps and read about the prisoner of war camps in japan well everyone doesn't play by the rules. how people handled those things. I really don't think that many people now days understand the evil of those times. and what 's happening now l really don't see much difference. Now it's easy for you and I to sit here and talk about what's right and wrong. at my age I'm not faced with it but I do know if we forget what happened it will happen again and these rules of war we talk about will mean nothing. all that will matter is who will win and then folks will sit around discuss who was right and who was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhensley

What happens in war is war. and for me it would be what ever it takes to win because unlike playing a sporting game in war it's not how you play the game but winning that counts.

---

Winning a war is easy, especially when like the unites states you vastly outgun your enemy. The problem is that winning a war doesn't accomplish much and can set you back in draining your resources and creating more ill will towards you from the people you just defeated.
The difference with the old days is that first you generally fought your neighbors and second then you would rape and plunder, run a genocide, etc.. Nowadays we have given up these things and so simply winning the war is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhensley

Now Obama. I voted. that gives me the right to say if I like him or not. those that didn't vote should not say any thing. Now whether I voted for him or not doesn't matter. I don't think he's doing a good job. I really hope the next one does better. that's my opinion and I voice it a lot. that's my right. ( I like arguing as you can probably tell. )

---

Nobody has disputed your right to your opinion, so I am not sure why you keep repeating that you have the right to it. But this thread is supposed to be primarily about the constitution and you seem to be complaining about systemic problem by point a finger at a person you don't like. Do you disagree with me, and if you do I'd love to hear your reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhensley

As far as the second amendment goes I think next to the first it is most important. without it you couldn't keep the first. I was taught in school that first you control the government then disarm the people after that well Russia comes to mind.

---

The issue was not whether it's important or not, but that it is very poorly written if the laws are supposed to be clear cut and easy to understand for the common perfon. Which was one of your early complaints in the thread and you insisted that it didn't used to be that way.

Again, nobody is asking you to not state your opinions, quite the opposite - to explain them further - for example what do you base them on, etc.

America has not won a war in almost 70 yrs (and we have engaged in many) loss of U.S troops has been close to 100K since 1945.
Sorta like a football game in my mind,you gonna play, you play to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhensley

Your Right, War is not clean. War is War and I for one wish it didn't exist. But it does and if I have to fight a war I would fight to win. In WW2 who were the ultimate bad guys. who were the aggressors. What rules did they follow. I see what happen in the concentration camps and read about the prisoner of war camps in japan well everyone doesn't play by the rules. how people handled those things. I really don't think that many people now days understand the evil of those times. and what 's happening now l really don't see much difference. Now it's easy for you and I to sit here and talk about what's right and wrong. at my age I'm not faced with it but I do know if we forget what happened it will happen again and these rules of war we talk about will mean nothing. all that will matter is who will win and then folks will sit around discuss who was right and who was wrong.

---

Right, so after 9/11 US started two wars. Who were the aggressors on 9/11? A bunch of saudis sent by a guy from a saudi elite family and financially supported by some rich saudis among others, with a base in Afganistan.
These people didn't invade US - they were allowed here legally. The saudi arabia probably said they have nothing to do with these people even though they were their citizens, so US invades two countries it believes to support those guys, fights to win and wins within few weeks (i.e. topples the governments there). What good did those victories do?

I can not see how one can suggest that not fighting hard enough is the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

America has not won a war in almost 70 yrs (and we have engaged in many) loss of U.S troops has been close to 100K since 1945.
Sorta like a football game in my mind,you gonna play, you play to win.

---

That's just not true. As I stated above US won both wars in Iraq and Afganistan within few weeks.

Don't forget Grenada . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orville

Except that those guys never should have BEEN in Gitmo in the first place. They should have been brought to trial in a US Court. .

---

Well that is questionable...

Are they POW's ???
Are they Criminals ???
Are they "Enemy Combatants" ??


See they blurred the line, we didn't, so the entire legal system whether Military or Civilian has been obscured...

Terrorists now are being classified more as Criminals especially those that are home grown.. It is a complicated question that personally I believe should be settled much like we did after WW2 with a Multi-National Tribunal

Only countries that have suffered a Terrorist attack should sit on the panel and the legal status of any prisoners should be once and for all be decided...

Basically an International set of rules for Terrorists/Mercenaries that work outside of a Country's Uniform we managed to work out the Geneva Conventions of War this should be a seperate part of it


ps: I am not positive but the way I understand the International Laws now they can actually be executed as Spies/Subversives as Non-Uniformed Combatants, will have to research that for accuracy.. But I don't think they actually have any rights if they are not uniformed POW's..