Supreme Court says Guatanamo inmates have rights to US legal system

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9986950%255E401,00.html


HOORAY. Now at least some one might even get a fair trial, not a crooked military tribunal. It's always been a sore point to me that the US administration spouts about freedom and democracy for Iraq, yet denies it to these men and boys held at Guatanamo Bay, illegally holding people like Daivid Hicks who most likely could never be charged with actually doign anything illegal.

I wouldnt be surprised if possible abuse allegations will get an airing in court too.

Some might say this ruling aids suspected terrorists. I say it's a good day for real justice, becuase these men aint terrorists until properly charged and tried in a fair court. The military commissions are one hell of a long way from that.

[Jedi Master Carr]

This is huge, to me this is the way it should be.

[Jedieb]

It's funny, but as usual, both sides are claiming a victory. One side says it's a defeat for the Bush administration because the prisoners can't be denied habeous corpus. Some in the administration say it's a victory for them because the decision acknowledges a state of war and that the President has the authority to detain these prisoners. But I think it's clear that the Court firmly acknolwledged the prisoners have rights and can't continue to be held without representation.

[Telan Desaria]

Why are criminals being tried? Does this not give them the legitimacy they so crave and make them martyrs for others to follow? Why do those who have committed crimes stand subject to same protection afforded to innocent subjects of the State?

I am confused. But then we all know MY beliefs.....

[Jedi Master Carr]

Are you talking about the terrorists or criminals in general? Well the later I can say easily people are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. This Peterson trial is a perfect example, the man looks guilty as hell but there is a chance he could be innocent should we throw him jail and say good rideance? No, not without a jury trial. These guys are more murky, I think we need to sort through them, some of them may not be guilty of that much, sure some should be tried, most of them wouldn't be found innocent I bet.

[Telan Desaria]

I am simply of the opinion that nullifying one for the good of a thousand is better than letting one go free to endager a thousand.

But that's me. And I know no one agrees so don't waste your time......

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Telan Desaria
Why are criminals being tried? Does this not give them the legitimacy they so crave and make them martyrs for others to follow? Why do those who have committed crimes stand subject to same protection afforded to innocent subjects of the State?

I am confused. But then we all know MY beliefs.....




What part of "Held without trial" dont you understand? What part of "presumption of innocence" that underpins a fair legal system dont you understand? What about "Denial of rights"?


In fact.... did you even read the article? Do you actually grok what this case was about?

Okay, lets put this to disk. Guatanamo Bay inmates are likely to have been arrested illegally, they have been denied all rights they should of had under the Geneva conventions or US law, they have been denied any sort of legal representation, they have been most likely tortured and abused, most have not even been charged and most likely cant be charged in any fair court... and it just goes on.

And what for? Cause they are suspected terrorists?!?!!?

Well if that's the case, charge them and try them in a fair court! But oooohhhh no, they dont have any rights cuase it's a WAR ON TERROR!!!! AND BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN IF WE DO!!!

-_-

Who cares what happens to a terrorist after he or she is found guilty. But that is not the case here. This is just President Bush ignoring all human rights conventions and his own country's laws because IT'S THE WAR ON TERROR!!! (add echo ffor best effect)

Survey says, wrong answer. Innocent until proven guilty, deserve their rights until proven guilty.That's the end of the story.

[CMJ]

Good story on the history of USA military tribunals.

*************************
Uncivil Courts
America's military tribunals through the ages.

By David Greenberg
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2001, at 12:44 PM PT


With U.S. forces seemingly closing in on Osama Bin Laden, the Bush administration may soon have to decide whether to execute its plan to try suspected terrorists—including American residents—before military tribunals. Just as the Bushies have invoked Abraham Lincoln's suspensions of the privilege of habeas corpus to justify their summary detentions, so they have hearkened back to the use of military tribunals in the Civil War to justify their new proposal. The big difference between the Bush plan (click here for the president's executive order) and Lincoln's plan, of course, is that while Bush intends to try mainly what the Supreme Court has called "enemy belligerents" in his military courts, Lincoln prosecuted American civilians. Still, now as then, using Army courts to try anyone but U.S. soldiers is to court the reproach of posterity.

Lincoln's Army tribunals began operating just a few months after the Civil War began. Disorder was acute in border states such as Maryland and Missouri, which remained loyal to the republic but contained many citizens who sympathized with or aided the Confederate rebels. In Maryland, Lincoln sought to quell the chaos by suspending habeas corpus (as discussed in last week's "History Lesson"). But Missouri was more intractable. In June 1861, the state's governor declared war on the Union forces even as he swore his fidelity to the United States; a month later, all-out combat had consumed the state. Union Gen. John C. Frémont imposed martial law in August.

Martial law, which Army commanders impose on populations when regular governments cease to function, is not the same as military law. According to the Articles of War passed by Congress in 1806, only members of the armed forces can be tried under military law. Once, during the War of 1812, Gen. Andrew Jackson tried a civilian journalist before a military commission, but the journalist was acquitted on the grounds that as a civilian, he wasn't subject to military justice. (Jackson, on the other hand, was fined $1,000 for contempt.) During the Mexican War, Gen. Winfield Scott made extensive use of military courts, but he obeyed the Articles of War and tried only soldiers in his own ranks who had broken laws.

Yet Frémont and his successor, Henry W. Halleck, believed (incorrectly) that they could legitimately employ military courts in Missouri because they had imposed martial law there. This belief probably stemmed from innocent confusion since, despite a Lincoln administration white paper spelling out the differences between the two concepts, few people understood them.

The defendants who came before these tribunals weren't Confederate soldiers, who, when captured, typically became prisoners of war and weren't put on trial. Rather, the defendants in military court were mainly civilians suspected of aiding the rebels. Gen. Halleck explained the rationale: In Missouri, he said, those burning bridges or buildings weren't "armed and open enemies" but "pretended quiet citizens living on their farms." These civilian rebels couldn't be treated as prisoners of war, but neither could they be entrusted to the local courts, which Halleck deemed "very generally unreliable"—not least because so many locals were likely to sympathize with the South. (International war crimes tribunals, like those used to try the Nazis at Nuremberg after World War II, weren't yet common practice.) So starting in September 1861, Missourians were prosecuted under military tribunals that Union generals established. Lincoln did nothing to deter his generals from doing as they saw fit to subdue Missouri.

Eleven months later, such tribunals were given explicit sanction to operate nationwide. In August 1862, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, on Lincoln's orders, suspended habeas corpus across the country and decreed that a range of civilian criminals and dissenters would face arrest and trial before military courts. Of the 4,000-plus military trials throughout the war, about 55 percent took place in the border states of Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky (where the Union military maintained a strong presence and where generals wouldn't trust juries composed of locals). Roughly 32 percent occurred in the Confederate states. The rest occurred in Washington, D.C. (which was also under martial law for some of the war), and the North.

As noted, captured Confederates weren't the usual defendants since they were typically held as prisoners of war. To be sure, after the war, some Confederates were tried before military courts. One Confederate Army officer, Henry Wirz, who ran an inhumane POW camp at Andersonville, Ga., was so tried and was executed for war crimes. The men who conspired with John Wilkes Booth to assassinate Lincoln were also convicted in a military court. On the other hand, civilian courts were often deemed fit to try Confederates. Even Confederate President Jefferson Davis was tried in U.S. federal court, although after President Andrew Johnson pardoned all rebels in 1868, Davis' indictment was dismissed.

The military trials that became most controversial were those of civilians who lived in Union or border states. Their offenses—which were categorized, rather indiscriminately, as "treason," "conspiracy," "rebellion," or other similar crimes—included engaging in guerrilla warfare, spying, avoiding the draft, and even voicing disloyal opinions. These defendants often received less than full justice.

The problem wasn't that the tribunals were kangaroo courts. Staffed by military officers, they did abide by set procedures and sometimes acquitted defendants. Sentences were subject to review by senior officers, death penalties by the president himself. Lincoln himself spared many lives.

But as is typical of military justice, those procedures afforded fewer protections than those of civilian courts. Basic constitutional requirements were ignored. The Army courts had no juries, as the Constitution mandates. Nor did they require a unanimous vote to convict. A majority vote sufficed, except in capital cases, which required a two-thirds vote.

Another injustice was that Army courts were used to prosecute common thieves or liquor traffickers—purposes far from those the Lincoln administration intended. Worse, defendants were charged with crimes incommensurate with their behavior. Some who had simply shown sympathy to the Confederacy were accused of treason, a clearly inapplicable charge according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, which defines treason as an "overt act" of "levying war" against the United States or of "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Some were sentenced to hard labor or death, though none was ultimately executed.

The most egregious violations of civilians' rights occurred in the North, where unreliable or ill-functioning civil courts could not be used as an excuse for resorting to military justice. One famous case involved Clement Vallandigham, an Ohio Democrat, former congressman, and leading "Copperhead," or Northern opponent of the war. A double victim, Vallandigham suffered from both the suspension of habeas corpus and the rough justice of military courts.

On May 1, 1863, Vallandigham delivered a fiery anti-war speech in Mount Vernon, Ohio, in which he attacked, among others, Gen. Ambrose Burnside, the military officer in charge of the region. A short-fused Burnside ordered Vallandigham's arrest. A few nights later, troops burst into Vallandigham's house in the wee hours and carried him away. Within days, an Army court sentenced him to jail for the rest of the war. Vallandigham petitioned a federal judge for a habeas corpus writ, but the judge noted that Lincoln had suspended the privilege. Vallandigham had in fact been trying to provoke just such a result, and he knew full well that Burnside was likely to come after him. He thus achieved his purposes: attaining martyrdom for himself and throwing Lincoln on the defensive.

The controversy deepened with the case of Lambdin Milligan, whom a military court in Indiana had sentenced to death for joining a pro-Confederate secret society called the Sons of Liberty. The Supreme Court, which in 1864 had declined to rule on Vallandigham's case, agreed in 1866 to hear Milligan's. In Ex Parte Milligan, Justice David Davis, delivering a majority opinion in Milligan's favor—which four justices joined and with which four others concurred in a separate opinion—strongly rebuked the government. Davis, who had been Lincoln's friend and campaign manager, held that military tribunals had no jurisdiction over civilians. Article III of the Constitution, he noted, mandates that courts be set up by Congress, and the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial.

Technically, the court didn't question Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus since the Habeas Corpus Act passed by Congress in 1863 had removed the pressing constitutional questions surrounding that action. But it did order the lower court to give Milligan a writ for his freedom. More important, Davis' opinion included a passage about wartime encroachments on freedoms that became a touchstone for civil libertarians ever since:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchism or despotism.

Milligan didn't prevent presidents from sending civilians to Army courts. During Reconstruction, military justice was used to suppress insurrections and punish criminals. During World War II, too, the Roosevelt administration prosecuted eight Nazi spies under military law and executed six, with Attorney General Francis Biddle deriding Milligan as a "bad case." (The administration could have held the potential saboteurs as POWs and tried them later at the war crimes tribunals.) The Supreme Court upheld FDR's action, ruling in Ex Parte Quirin that Milligan's example wasn't relevant because Milligan was not an "enemy belligerent." In essence, Quirin tried to broaden the class of those subject to military justice beyond U.S. soldiers to include hostile combatants as well—the key point on which the Bush administration today rests its case.

Nonetheless, for decades now it has been Milligan, not Quirin, that has been considered a landmark, an eloquent articulation of the paramount need for protecting civil liberties in wartime. To be sure, presidents and attorneys general have had little use for Milligan and legally speaking, Quirin overturned, or at least modified, it. But students of history and constitutional law have consistently considered Milligan the better decision. And if Milligan hasn't deterred wartime politicians from using military justice against enemy soldiers—just as it doesn't seem apt to disturb the Bush administration's military tribunal plans today—it has seared in the record the idea that future generations will not look kindly on such actions.

[Tiberius Anar]

I agree with Marcus. In a democracy you protect your enemies along with everyone else. It may seem screwy but that is the way it ought to be, and in this case, is.

[Dan the Man]

Either treat them as POW's or as criminals.

I'm more than a little perturbed at my country's recent trend of whittling away personal freedom of both foreigners and its own citizens.

Now, whether to treat them as POW's or as criminals, I really don't know.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree I don't think we should be giving up freedoms for this.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I agree I don't think we should be giving up freedoms for this.

The tragic thing is that I can't even trust people like you to fully go to bat for personal freedom. The same people who may rage against the Guantanamo Bay machine are also the same people who are feverishly in favor of gun control in our country.

I'm far more concerned about the effects of 9-11 against US citizens than I am for the people at Guantanamo Bay, no offense. While Guantanamo is a darling for newspaper headlines, its becoming so easy for the Department of Homeland Security and other "law enforcement" measures to take a crap on the essentials afforded to us in the Bill of Rights.

[Jedieb]

Gun control RULES!!!! Man, I can't wait until Kerry gets in office and starts passing more and more bans on assault weapons! :evil

It would make sense to treat them as POW's, but I don't know if that's possible since many of them come from countries that we aren't technically at war with. Treating them as criminals is probably the way to go. If they're guilty, then get it over with and try them. Get the bastards in jail as soon as possible. But holding them like this is just wrong.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Gun control RULES!!!! Man, I can't wait until Kerry gets in office and starts passing more and more bans on assault weapons! :evil

I hope you're being facetious

[Jedi Master Carr]

Look people can have rifles and pistols (as long as we have back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of crazies) but why in the world would you want Assault weapons??? They have only one purpose kill 20 people they are useless in hutning unless you want a puddle for a deer prize. I just don't see the reason for keeping. Heck lets just have anything we want, lets people have flame throwers and bazooks if they want they are protected by the second amendment too.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Look people can have rifles and pistols (as long as we have back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of crazies) but why in the world would you want Assault weapons??? They have only one purpose kill 20 people they are useless in hutning unless you want a puddle for a deer prize. I just don't see the reason for keeping. Heck lets just have anything we want, lets people have flame throwers and bazooks if they want they are protected by the second amendment too.

I doubt you even know what an assault weapon is, under the current legal definition in the Assault Weapon Ban.

Here's a hint: "Assault Weapon" has nothing to do with automatic rates of fire (ie, machine gun)

[Syren Wyssholt]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Gun control RULES!!!! Man, I can't wait until Kerry gets in office and starts passing more and more bans on assault weapons! :evil


We don't need more bans on assault weapons. We need stricter laws and harsher penalties for those who chose to do harm against another human being with an assault weapon. I don't pretend to know the current legal definition in the Assault Weapons Ban, but I will tell you this:

My finger can be considered an assault weapon. I can gouge somebody's eye out with it. My palm can be used to shove the nasal cavity sharply into the brain of someone and kill them. My car keys can be used to do harm against another human being and I can crush someone's windpipe with a sharp jab of my fingertips into the right area of their throat.

To me, an assault weapon is anything that can be used to do intentional harm against another human being.

Keeping guns, illegal types or not, off the black market and out of the hands of crazies just isn't going to happen. However, there are steps that can be taken to do what is feasibly possible to lower the number of whack jobs who possess a firearm. (Of which can be discussed in the near future).

Harsher punishments for those who commit a violent crime with an assault weapon (or any violent crime in general, to be honest) are definitely needed.

Not to get too personal here, but my aunt was murdered by her husband. (Granted it wasn't with an assault weapon, but bear with me). She was beaten, strangled and finally smothered with a pillow until she died. Then he tried to kill their own son by smashing his head in with a brick.

Why did he do it? He testified that she wanted her family to spend Thanksgiving at their home and he didn't want us there. So he killed her. The States Attorney did also prove that he committed premeditated murder. After spending 3 - 4 days per week for a total of nine full months in court, his conviction and sentencing was passed down.

Do you know what his punishment is?

My aunt's murderer was sentenced to 34 years in prison. He served seven before coming up for his first parol. Every few years, he becomes eligible for parole. He won't serve a full 34 years. We'll be lucky if he serves half of that.

Personally, I think the punishment does not fit the crime. I think that he should have had his hands cut off at the wrist by a dull blade and without any type of medications to keep him calm or make his nerves numb. He used his hands as an assault weapon. Remove them.

It's not fair to the gun owners who abide by the laws, learn how to properly handle their weapon and are fully educated in gun safety and the dangers of having one to continually punish them by enacting stricter gun control laws.

Gun control is an oxymoron. Its not the gun that has to be controlled - its the person wielding it. You can fill up a room with one hundred men and have one loaded gun laying on a table and be perfectly safe. The gun isn't going to go off on its own. It takes just one person to pick up that gun and fire it.

IMO, it's hypocritical of our government to ban assault weapons, come up with BS laws that are useless (obviously the ones we have already are not doing anything to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals or off the black market), when our own government sells weapons of all types to the same countries who then turn around and use them against us.

Erm sorry. Back to the point I wanted to make o_O ...

Our Bill of Rights and US Constitution states:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Maybe I am misinterrupting the bolded area of the Fifth Amendment, but that looks to me like what's been going on in Guantanamo isn't illegal or unfair. I'd like to think that the US is better than third world countries in its treatment of its prisoners (especially of those who are held during a time of war) but I'm not a fool. I don't doubt for a minute that those being held have been abused or beaten, deprived and whatnot. However, I am also sure that our men and women whom are imprisoned or captured over in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc; are being treated just as poorly, if not worse.

[Jedieb]

Look people can have rifles and pistols (as long as we have back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of crazies) but why in the world would you want Assault weapons??? They have only one purpose kill 20 people they are useless in hutning unless you want a puddle for a deer prize. I just don't see the reason for keeping. Heck lets just have anything we want, lets people have flame throwers and bazooks if they want they are protected by the second amendment too.

That's my view as well. I don't want all guns banned. For one, it's completely impractical and it ignores the fact that most gun owners are law abiding citizens. But we need gun control. Whether it's in the form of waiting periods, background checks, bans on certain types of weapons and ammunition, etc. The laws and the weapons are convuluted and the process is constantly in flux, but simply abandoning any legislation because it favors some kind of gun control is insane.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Maybe I am misinterrupting the bolded area of the Fifth Amendment, but that looks to me like what's been going on in Guantanamo isn't illegal or unfair.

It seems to me that the bolded area you're referring is referring to military personel and military justice. If these prisoners are military/war time prisoners, then they have rights under the Geneva convention and international law. The administration can write all the memos they want, but eventually, these prisoners are going to get their representation. I'd be happy to see them convicted and imprisoned, but it should be done correctly.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Jedieb
That's my view as well. I don't want all guns banned. For one, it's completely impractical and it ignores the fact that most gun owners are law abiding citizens. But we need gun control. Whether it's in the form of waiting periods, background checks, bans on certain types of weapons and ammunition, etc. The laws and the weapons are convuluted and the process is constantly in flux, but simply abandoning any legislation because it favors some kind of gun control is insane.

Waiting periods are seriously unneeded. Background checks can be done at every commercial point of sale these days, even at gun shows. Really, I don't accept many issues of gun control, but I'll even go as far as to allow for instant background checks. It's really not needed in my opinion, but I suppose it goes a few miles to assuage unfounded and ridiculous fearmongering, which America is flush with when it comes to guns.

The Assault Weapons Ban is the most convoluted bit of garbage fluff legislation passed in the last 10 years. Its nothing more than a power play by the federal government to whittle away at gun owner's rights, and to coddle the kind of fear-mongering that is rife with the soccer moms and their ilk in our society today.

The ban makes illegal items that are largely comfort related and/or cosmetic. Certain combinations of features, such as flash supressors, bayonet lugs, folding or collapsible stocks, pistol grips, and the like have been made FLAT OUT illegal (mind you, fully automatic machine guns aren't even truly illegal).

And for what reasons? Is there really any correlation between these features that make guns "look scary", and actual crime statistics? Why aren't they actually trying to get gun manufacturers like Lorcin and other manufacturers of Saturday Night Specials to make their guns with better quality control?

I really don't think Washington gives a flip about the real causes of the gun crime dilemma, namely their own failed war on drugs. I don't think they even want to make an effort to ease the pains of such issues. Instead, they go after the markets that are dominated by legal, law-abiding, and responsible gun owners. The ones who know their rights, and know their responsibilities.

Its not exactly breaking news that the federal government is really keen on whittling away our rights at any opportunity they can get away with it. I think gun control is less about Compton and Columbine to them, and more about exercising unprecedented leverage and control over the people of America.

Final point, there is a disturbing trend of saying "Who needs ____ kind of gun anyway?" This really needs to stop, because its utterly irrelevant. If we put the things we purchase and the activities we engage in on a "need" basis, we are going to run this country into a world of crap.

I want to buy an AK-47. I also want to buy an SKS. Why do I want to buy these DANGEROUS ASSAULT WEAPONS :rolleyes?

None of your business, that's why. Welcome to America.

[Syren Wyssholt]

Originally posted by Jedieb
It seems to me that the bolded area you're referring is referring to military personel and military justice. If these prisoners are military/war time prisoners, then they have rights under the Geneva convention and international law. The administration can write all the memos they want, but eventually, these prisoners are going to get their representation. I'd be happy to see them convicted and imprisoned, but it should be done correctly.

Ah, thanks for explaining it further for me. I've got nothing against fair representation. Maybe someone would be kind enough to explain something else to me, though.


I admit that I don't pay much attention at all to the news and its rare if I find myself browsing the news websites. In truth, I quit watching television about 5-6 years ago. Too depressing for me to watch. Still, I hear about some of the things going on at work and I do read the posts made here at Fans. And, I do appreciate it when there are those here who take the time to explain things to me. I sincerely thank you for that.

I'm perplexed at all the hoopla this Guantanamo "incident" is receiving. I suppose that part that perplexes me is the fact that people assume this type of thing hasn't happened before.

I suppose the other areas that perplex is the fact that there are those in the world like Hussein, Bin Ladan, terrorists, etc whom violate the International Laws, Geneva Convention, Humanitarian Rights, etc yet it seems as if no big deal is made of that.

Is it because this involves the US and its intentional use is to bash Bush and bash the US?

I mean, it seems as if every time there is a new Presidential election, the goal is to make the current President look as bad as they can possibly make him out to be. That way, when a new President is elected, they can start off the new office with praise and kudos on how good he is. It also seems to me that every four years, there's a new war. I'm beginning to wonder if the world leaders don't sit down together and plan these things out.

Am I naive to think that the exact same thing isn't happening elsewhere in the world? Perhaps our own soldiers are being held without fair representation and without being charged for anything? That they, too, are not being abused?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Now this to me is why I think they should be banned.

I want to buy an AK-47. I also want to buy an SKS. Why do I want to buy these DANGEROUS ASSAULT WEAPONS ?


So with that logic than people should be able to purchase a Flame Thrower or a rocket launcher. Because it is none of the government's buisness. Look Ak-47 are only used for one reason to kill people. Nobody goes and uses them to hunt because the animal would be mush (unless you are hunting big game which we don't have in North America.) So is it okay if people can buy them??? What this leads to is criminal enterprises most likely, terrorists, drug dealers leads to death in cities and on playgrounds and I am sorry I don't see how that is helping anything. Banning AK-47's and others of its type won't be taking away a freedom, our forefathers never saw a gun like that, they were talking about muskets when they issued that thing. And a musket would be lucky to kill one person unlike the Ak-47 which could kill 20 in about a minute. People just don't need them like they don't need Flame Throwers, Rocket Launchers, etc.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Syren Wyssholt
Ah, thanks for explaining it further for me. I've got nothing against fair representation. Maybe someone would be kind enough to explain something else to me, though.


I admit that I don't pay much attention at all to the news and its rare if I find myself browsing the news websites. In truth, I quit watching television about 5-6 years ago. Too depressing for me to watch. Still, I hear about some of the things going on at work and I do read the posts made here at Fans. And, I do appreciate it when there are those here who take the time to explain things to me. I sincerely thank you for that.

I would advise reading the BBC website.



I'm perplexed at all the hoopla this Guantanamo "incident" is receiving. I suppose that part that perplexes me is the fact that people assume this type of thing hasn't happened before.


Maybe it has happened before, but western countires are supposed to be above such denial of rights, held without trial, abuse and probably torture and killing. What was the reason the "Coalition of the Willing" went to Iraq for? How are we any different if we are doing exactly the same?



I suppose the other areas that perplex is the fact that there are those in the world like Hussein, Bin Ladan, terrorists, etc whom violate the International Laws, Geneva Convention, Humanitarian Rights, etc yet it seems as if no big deal is made of that.


Because the West is holds itself to higher ideals. We say such things are immoral and illegal, yet..... here it is, beign done by the west. Sorta makes the USA esp look like hypocrites, yes? And also, isnt the moral high ground taken away?



Is it because this involves the US and its intentional use is to bash Bush and bash the US?


Ooooh, I wish it was, given how contemptable Bush is. No, this is not bashing. This is protesting a clear wrong. Guatanamo Bay is indefensable and inexcusable, it is hypocracy. And, most likely no one there can be actually charged with anythig in a fair court.



I mean, it seems as if every time there is a new Presidential election, the goal is to make the current President look as bad as they can possibly make him out to be. That way, when a new President is elected, they can start off the new office with praise and kudos on how good he is. It also seems to me that every four years, there's a new war. I'm beginning to wonder if the world leaders don't sit down together and plan these things out.


Wha? Come again? There's been protest and harsh words been said of Guatanamo Bay for over a year at least. I might add, the inmates did not come from Iraq - they came from Afghanistan and Pakistan over 2.5 years ago, in a war that the USA entered into in 2001. Which, I add, almost every single country around the world supported and still does.



Am I naive to think that the exact same thing isn't happening elsewhere in the world? Perhaps our own soldiers are being held without fair representation and without being charged for anything? That they, too, are not being abused?

No, it's a fact of life it happens. However, when the country that hops up and down the most about it does it, you have a problem. You have the Bill of rights, your signed uot the Geneva conventions, people in the USA is the loudest voice against prisioner abuse. And, if i recall correctly, President Bush used prisioner abuse as a justification to Iraq war. That does not look good when he's authorised exactly the same thing.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Now this to me is why I think they should be banned.

I want to buy an AK-47. I also want to buy an SKS. Why do I want to buy these DANGEROUS ASSAULT WEAPONS ?

I was being HIGHLY sarcastic. They're semiautomatic rifles, for pete's sake. These things aren't even machine guns.


So with that logic than people should be able to purchase a Flame Thrower or a rocket launcher. Because it is none of the government's buisness. Look Ak-47 are only used for one reason to kill people. Nobody goes and uses them to hunt because the animal would be mush (unless you are hunting big game which we don't have in North America.) So is it okay if people can buy them??? What this leads to is criminal enterprises most likely, terrorists, drug dealers leads to death in cities and on playgrounds and I am sorry I don't see how that is helping anything. Banning AK-47's and others of its type won't be taking away a freedom, our forefathers never saw a gun like that, they were talking about muskets when they issued that thing. And a musket would be lucky to kill one person unlike the Ak-47 which could kill 20 in about a minute. People just don't need them like they don't need Flame Throwers, Rocket Launchers, etc.

Do you read? The guns are semiautomatic versions of the military rifles. They don't explode things on impact. They don't fire rapidly. They are completely different animals, so you need to look at this issue without your hollywood-tinted glasses on.

Criminal Enterprises? Terrorists? Drug Dealers? :rolleyes

Please to be learning your statistics, and give it a look-see. "Assault weapons" are used in two percent of annual gun crimes AT MOST. I do believe the guns you and society should be more scared about are the "Saturday Night Special" pistols, which are cheap, shoddy, inaccurate, and dangerous to both target and user alike. Guns like Lorcins and TEK-9's run the gamut for the lion's share of gun crime. If you want to play your silly gun control game, I'd suggest you start right there, and demand those manufacturers clean up their acts. Law abiding gun owners (ie, the guys NOT using their guns in crime) are quite aware that these guns are crap, and simply don't use them. Fancy that, eh?

As for the issue of "nobody needing an 'assault rifle'", I suggest that you wake up, and see that there are a lot of people who are using these rifles for recreational target shooting, and personal defense. Oh and I've seen plenty of people hunt with .223 Bushmaster AR-15 (M-16 clone) rifles with modified sights. Its inadvisable against anything larger than a whitetail deer, but to say that you can't hunt with one is really stupid. The interesting thing, however, is that most assault rifles are inappropriate for larger game, not because they're too destructive, but because they aren't powerful enough! 5.56mm NATO rounds, 7.62x39mm Warsaw Pact rounds, and other similar cartridges are relatively small cartridges, optimized for manstopping potential. What nobody wants to tell you is that John Q. Public's hunting rifle, which is likely a flavor of a 30 caliber cartridge, is FAR more powerful than any AR-15 or AK-47. If you're worried about people with magazine-fed SKS rifles out there, I'd be much more concerned about a guy with a magazine-fed Remington 30-06. If an SKS can kill a cop with his light-resistance kevlar vest, I imagine you could line up two or three and perforate them with a 30-06. Think about that next time you go tresspassin' on Joe Bob Redneck's property. You'll wish he had an assault rifle instead ;).


As an aside, I'm quite suprised that there is no longer any big game in North America :rolleyes I guess bison, bear, and caribou are no longer big game.

What really burns my butt is people like you talking about how gun control won't take away our freedom. You completely miss the point on the ideals which our country was founded upon. I really don't understand where this whole trend of unquestionably coddling the government came from, and I'm sure it has a lot to do with the crap that's happened to my country after 9-11, but its got to stop. I don't trust the government. I never will. Neither did our founding fathers. These clownshoes in Washington work for us, NOT the other way around. Part of that deal is that they screw with our lives as little as possible. They obviously aren't holding up their side of the bargain, and haven't for some time. Think about how brazen these bureaucrats will be if they remove the arms of the population. There's no limit to how far they'll continue to push us around. That's why I'm fully in support of anybody who wants a firearm for that reason. I like the idea of the people of the United States being as armed as they please, and holding an unspoken Sword of Damocles over every head on Capitol Hill. If that's what it takes to make sure that these guys are doing the right thing, then good! The founding fathers, if the revolution were to take place with today's technology, would've used an assault rifle all the same. You forget that a muzzle-loading musket was a military weapon of the time. If you think that guys who are fighting for their freedom against all odds are going to do so with hunting rifles only, because the alternative is "bad", you're out of your freaking mind.

You know the phrase "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"? Same goes to firearm discussions. The trouble with discussing the issue is that people like yourself have been manipulated for years by the media, and you simply have no basis for understanding how firearms work, why people own them, and where reality begins and hollywood ends.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Look I have my opinions and I am not argue with you about it. There is no point because we aren't going to change each other minds.

[Charley]

Yes, but I'm backing my opinions up with some manner of factual basis here. I'm trying to make sure that at the very least, you and other such similar gun-control fanatics do the same.

[Telan Desaria]

As I have scaled back the level of my intervention in threads like this, I am going to rant for a few. Agree of disagree with me, they are mine. I thank several people for arguing them logically and with reasons and rhyme as opposed to those who simply call me a fascist dog and tramp out the other epithets.


Here goes.


Why do I want an assault weapon? Firstly, let us define according to me what an assault weapon is.

1944 was a time when Europe was in turmoil and the German Empire in its last forms was fending off the communist hordes. As such, the MP 40 submachine gun while an excellent design and had already made its mark on history was no longer powerful enough for the needs of the front. Thusly the SG 44 or Sturmgewehr was made. It is literally translated into storm gun. The weapon was highly effective and without exception the best of the war. The Russians in their victory stole the design, added a wooden hand-grip and produced the AK-47.

All guns of this type are designed to be used by an army for the purpose of concentrating a large volume of fire on target. This is escpecially helpful against massed attacks and in urban warfare where a standard rifle is not practical.

Again - why do I want one?

Simply put, because there shall be a day not too far from the horizon where governments shall fall and chaos as well as war will spread like anthrax in the mist. Anarchy or nuclear devastaion - chose your own catastrophe - will strike. Or without pragmatism, crime will simply become so wretched and great that only an HK 20 in one's backseat will assure a safe trip to the bar-windowed super market.

I want one for the day anarchy dawns or crime commences. Why not just a pistol? Because the only logical solution for survival in such an age is the creation of gangs and organiuzed crime - thusly muggings and robberies would take place in numbers approx three or greater. In order to kill all intruders or attackers effectively and without mistake, a weapon such as the vaunted SG44 will be needed. While a a trio of well timed and well aimed pistol shots may be as good for those of with nerves, the fragile housewife defending her children will be shaking to no end. A spray of twenty bullets however unaimed in their direction will assure her at least temproary survival.

Is this dramatic? Yes. Is this realistic? Sadly, yes.

Without inserting politics into the mix, things can go only so far up before they fall - - I for one think that modern society has passed its golden age.

Am I willing to suffer horrendous laws that make me wait weeks to assure my contained and righeous useage of the weapon?

Yes.

Do I still want it?

Without doubt exception or hesitation.

[Jedieb]

Yes, but I'm backing my opinions up with some manner of factual basis here. I'm trying to make sure that at the very least, you and other such similar gun-control fanatics do the same.

Wait, we're fanatics?! We want waiting periods, bans on cop killer bullets, background checks, and that makes us fanatics? So I guess we should post multiple paragraphs on why we support each of these, huh? Now THAT would make us fanatics. The next time I see a police union back gun control legislation similiar to the Brady Bill I'll make sure to call them fanatics. :lol (And yes, plenty of cops are in favor of handgun ownership, my father-in-law is one of them. But they wouldn't automatically call other cops who favored gun control legislation like the Brady Bill fanatics.

But speaking of fanatical...


I want one for the day anarchy dawns or crime commences. Why not just a pistol? Because the only logical solution for survival in such an age is the creation of gangs and organiuzed crime - thusly muggings and robberies would take place in numbers approx three or greater. In order to kill all intruders or attackers effectively and without mistake, a weapon such as the vaunted SG44 will be needed. While a a trio of well timed and well aimed pistol shots may be as good for those of with nerves, the fragile housewife defending her children will be shaking to no end. A spray of twenty bullets however unaimed in their direction will assure her at least temproary survival.
Wow.... Okay, after the "fragile wife" sprays her 20 rounds in less than 5 seconds and more than likely doesn't hit a damn thing, what then? Because if she's too incompetent to use a .45 correctly, she sure as hell isn't going to be able to effectively use an SG44 or any other automatic weapon. I guess everyone needs to start stockpiling because the end of the world is near. Although, if the world your describing comes to fruition, assualt weapons are only going to buy someone a few extra days. They'll end up as dead as the poorly armed pistol pakers by the end of the first month of the new world order.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Wait, we're fanatics?!

You certainly are, if you are willing to support these moronic bills that fly in the face of facts and common sense.


We want waiting periods, bans on cop killer bullets, background checks, and that makes us fanatics?

Waiting periods are utterly worthless. Background checks, if instantaneous, I can undestand, but there is no reason whatsoever to enforce a waiting period in gun purchases at all.

Cop killer bullets? Please enlighten me as to what these OMG HARDCORE cop killer bullets are, please.


So I guess we should post multiple paragraphs on why we support each of these, huh? Now THAT would make us fanatics.

Yes. If you believe in something passionately enough to crap away your tax money, and really believe its such an "urgent" need to strip the populace of its arms, then I should certainly hope you'd take the time to explain yourself, and at least put forth the illusion of having your ducks in a row.


The next time I see a police union back gun control legislation similiar to the Brady Bill I'll make sure to call them fanatics. :lol

Good, you should. The police are usually the ones behind the lion's share of abuses with legally-owned assault weapons. As a matter of fact, the only murder since the Great Depression done with a legally owned machine gun was done by cop. Imagine that!

Less than a month ago, some jerk in my hometown killed three cops with an illegal SKS. While the idiot who pulled the trigger deserves the book thrown at him, I'm not inclined to just sit by and let the cops run roughshod over law-abiding gun owners in a knee-jerk reaction.

The cops were barely cold and in the ground before some idiots in Montgomery tried to put forth a bill to PERMANENTLY extend Senator Feinstein's moronic AWB, and on top of that, to ban SKS and Bushmaster AR-15 rifles :rolleyes

Fortunately, we've got a fairly gung-ho legislature that will torpedo this bill in the water, but its the issue that such a bill got drafted in the first place, with almost no down time whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong. I have no beef with cops in general, and I'm even friends with a few at the range and whatnot. On top of that, I have a great deal of respect of the crap they have to put up with. That being said, curtailing our freedoms for some marginal improvement in their job isn't any kind of solution to anything.

I think people these days are thinking "OMG COPS 9-11 NEVER FORGET", like the police are some kind of untouchable, infallible entity, and that we should automatically defer to their needs.

This must never happen.

[Telan Desaria]

I would loike to thank everyone for being calm and intellectual with my arguement thus far.