- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 57,018
But they're still bad people, eh?
And to be honest I wouldn't hand anyone over to China. They'd probably just train them for their army.
Last edited:
Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!
By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!
-
If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.
Gitmo
- Thread starter tinselwolverine
- Start date
But they're still bad people, eh?
And to be honest I wouldn't hand anyone over to China. They'd probably just train them for their army.
redandguilty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,227
...and mostly, if we know they're guilty, why can't we have a trial?
redandguilty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,227
Not sure that I disagree with Red all that much. I think the Gitmo prison should be closed, but maybe the manner in which it is closed might be different. I am not in favor of just releasing them.
As far as the statement made by Red that you bolded. I fail to see why, when presented as a different opinion as eloquently as he does, why I would be at his throat. Why do you think the conservative position wouldn't respect and highly value the rule of law?
At least he isn't weeping for our educational system over it. :*)
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 34,212
maybe because of Ford pardoning Nixon and pretty much everything since then?
redandguilty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,227
What?!
1) Michigan Man 2) Presidential pardons are a part of our laws 3) it was a good and self-sacrificial move on his part. Good for the nation. Bad for his own career.
redandguilty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,227
...and I wish there was someone that could have pardoned Clinton on his perjury impeachment thing. What a waste. (No. I'm not saying they are equal. There are only so many examples of Presidents breaking laws. One case is major and one was a situation that never should have happened to begin with. Either way, at that point, it was a rare situation where Presidential judgement to side step our regular justice procedures would be justifiable. Just not possible for Clinton.)
Last edited:
- Thread Author
- #68
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 35,800
There was someone, or someones, who could have pardoned Clinton on the perjury impeachment thing...and they did.
It was the United States Senate.
Right because Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon completely devalues the rule of law for all conservatives.
Wow - just wow.
. . . and Charlie Rangel means liberals are all for the Rule of Law? Get off your high horse.
redandguilty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,227
My bad. I wish someone could have preemptively pardoned Clinton.
- Thread Author
- #71
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 35,800
And what would have been the sport in that?
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 34,212
a pardon after a conviction is one thing. what Ford did for Nixon was another.
not sure what point you're making with Charlie Rangel has to do with the fact that the last couple GOP presidents have completely pissed all over the rule of law, and the vast majority of GOP voters continued to support and defend them.
not sure what point you're making with Charlie Rangel has to do with the fact that the last couple GOP presidents have completely pissed all over the rule of law, and the vast majority of GOP voters continued to support and defend them.
Can you name me a president that didn't "piss all over" the Rule of Law that isn't defended by someone somehow? C'mon that has absolutely zero to do with whether any one person values the rule of law. Charlie was brought up as an example that politicians are, in general, "do as I say not as I do" people.
So are you saying no one values the Rule of Law because they might defend a politician who "pissed all over it"? Seems like an absurd argument to me - but I guess that is par for the course.
Last edited:
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 34,212
jimmy carter. bill clinton.
redandguilty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,227
I'm still unclear on what Ford did that violated the Constitution.
Thumb
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 18,962
Then what would you suggest? If you're finally going to offer an opinion on it, I'd like to hear it.
If we have evidence, let's put them on trial, if we have no evidence then we absolutely have to release them, that's the rule of law.
- Thread Author
- #77
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 35,800
Actually there was someone who had some preemptive power regarding the situation...and it was Bill Clinton.
Clinton could have simply chosen not to perjur himself.
Now, one way he could have done it would have been to simply to have to chosen to not give testimony at all in the civil hearing - he could have chosen just not to show, and accept whatever default judgement the court decided upon.
I don't know if I think Clinton pissed all over the rule of law when he committed perjury in the in the Paula Jones complaint - but he certainly pissed on the rule of law's shoes.
- Thread Author
- #78
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 35,800
Just for those who are missing it...Thumb is in about the sixth or seventh layer of a humerus theme that runs across across several threads and posts here on this board. They all go back to tsmith. Recently, tsmith snuck back on this board with the "Is everybody a liberal on this board..." thread...and MichChamp made a humerous (and clever) response about byco and KAWDUP and xyzt being raging liberal pinkos (he labeled me a pinko that hides behind a subterfuge of being "objective" and "impartial").
On that thread, Thumb also made a humerous post that goes back to ANOTHER tsmith comment, when tsmith claimed that he was the "only conservative on the board..." and Thumb answered tsmith that he was stupid and it wasn't true...that byco, KAWDUP, Mitch and MHughes were also conservatives...
To which Red responded "I don't count any more...?"
So there was a little bit of humerus back and forth between Red, Thumb and MichChamp when Thumb referred back to that on the recent "Is everybody a liberal on this board" thread.
I gotta stop now.
All this explaining humerus things are making my upper arms hurt.
- Thread Author
- #79
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 35,800
Possibly pretext would have been a little bit more appropo, now that I'm thinkin' on it.
I'll give you that Carter didn't do enough to piss all over it, but certainly in my opinion Clinton had enough problems with the Rule of Law that he would not be included when being asked to cast the first stone.
. . . as it pertains to gitmo, I think it shows what happens when we let government run amok. There are many concerns that john q taxpayer is going to end up taking it in the ass whether we close it or not. It is a huge mess, but I would have no trouble with a military tribunal. I don't agree that those prisoners are protected by the Bill of Rights - but even that belief should have its day in some kind of hearing.
Btw I didn't throw this opinion out there to appease Thumb - I refuse to engage when he is acting like a troll.
Now that I know who he acted that way toward, though, it loses a little steam, but I call them like see them as I'm sure he does too.
Affiliates
