Quote Originally Posted by urleebird View Post
Criminals here in the US lose their rights when they commit acts of violence against society.
They do not lose all their right!, just those necessary to incarcerate them and some others, like the right to vote. You statement also has to include the assumption that they've been convicted, or they're not criminals. Even the worst criminal has the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. The right to a fair trial and against self incrimination if he's being tried for something additional. The right to freedom of religion and speech, and maybe habeas corpus.

Don't see why those responsible for terrorist acts should be afforded the slightest consideration for even another breath of air.
This could be true if they're convicted of certain crimes, but not if they're just accused. It remains to be seen what will happen with those commissions, but under current law they still need to be convicted in a fair trial. Just being arrested or accused doesn't make you a criminal or a terrorist yet.

Our criminals lose those rights before trial, by the way. So there goes one of your follow-up arguments about being innocent
Where does that come from? They are not a criminal before trial, and they are entitled to be released on bial unless a court finds a good reason not to. So exactly what rights is it that the accused lose? They are innocent until proven guilty.

And a trial? I hope your idea of a fair trial doesn't mean a duplication of the one for OJ Simpson. I don't know why I get the impression that is what you really mean by fair.
That was a travesty, but I'm not sure what could have been done once the jury decided. Does it mean we need to do away with a fair trial and go to a commission system for everyone? Just how far does this go?

From what I've read about the new law, the president has the power to decide who is subject to it. So, it could be any of us. If anyone has information to the contrary, please let us know.

I am also curious. I'm not quite sure if you are trying to stimulate honest answers through debate, or just goad people into responding harshly. I'd kinda like to know where you got the 99% from, as well. Are you privy to some information that the rest of us don't have. I, personally, don't think that number is accurate. Then again, I may not know as much as you.
I'm not sure what part goads people on. Is it the 99%? If so, pick a number. Do you like 50%? Does that justify disenfranchising or anihilating a race? I think that's what he's asking, and what part of that goads you on? Isn't this just another personal attack calculated to discourage him or punish him from speaking his mind?

I hope that response was polite enough for everybody... If you don't like this one, I know you won't like the rest of them...
And what's this, some kind of veiled threat? Although I'm speaking to the issues I'm also, speaking to you, sir. Is this your idea of free discourse? Why does everything become so personal and every response so antagonistic?