And special rights for
Posted By: Patty on 2009-04-07
In Reply to: Actually our representatives do represent the people - New Englander
the sexually confused.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Special rights
I don't believe any group of people should have special rights, but I certainly believe they should have equal rights. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, be entitled to family health insurance coverage, etc. I am not sure what special rights homosexuals are looking for, other than fair treatment. If we continue to look at them as sinners, which I cannot believe God created a whole group of people and they are all sinners because they are homosexual, they will always be thought of as outcasts, as other races were (and still are) treated in this country.
Hopefully your children will never have to make the abortion decision, but I have learned to never say never. My best friend is the daughter of an Assembly of God minister, and she had an abortion at age 16. She has never told her parents to this day (24 years later).
What about special rights for the 'morally confused?'
Talk about special privileges.
Texas supreme court affirms special rights for religion
The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.
Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations — like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church — further a “compelling” interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.
Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.
However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr’s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his “ministry” for parolees anywhere.
Barr’s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice — founded by Pat Robertson — and by the ACLU.
LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated “pervasive religious hostility” by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.
According to Sasser, today’s decision “means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. … You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can’t locate here and locate there. That’s going to be a touch burden for cities.”
“This is a home run,” Sasser proclaimed. ‘I think it will be a model for other states.”
An IQ of 135 is nothing special? I bet you never took
an IQ test and if you did, your score is probably judging on the substance of your posts, I would guess below 90.
Average is 90.
Thanks, TLD. That is a very special video. (nm)
nm
Well aren't you just special then.
xx
We do think it is special. Everyone has access to...sm
affordable healthcare. We have one of the highest minimum wage rates, quite exceptional since we are a very rural state, and great support taxwise for small business. Please don't come here, you would not fit in.
You obviously have no idea just how special she is...(sm)
Whether you agree with her views or not, M is one of those people who deserve respect. From what I know of her, she is well-written, intelligent, can express her views logically, and has no problem with providing documentation/proof for any discussion. Pay attention, you may learn something from her posts.
It's 4 hours 15 minutes, an HBO special...sm
Yeah Spike Lee put it together.
You have to have special license from the state....
and it is done specifically to reduce the predator population where moose and caribou populations are in danger from too many predators in the area. It is not done for sport. It is done all over our western United States to reduce predator populations.
People don't want oil drilling to disturb the caribou, but don't mind large wolf populations taking them out? As far as hard to watch videos, have you ever seen a wolf pack attack a carbiou and devour it while it is still kicking? Not pretty.
This aerial hunting practice has been used for years, and while I would not engage in it, sometimes it is necessary to control predator populations. Environmentalists sometimes make a mistake in going overboard to protect predators, then when other species are endangered by the overpopulation, things like this become necessary.
Special about Obama's Neighbors on now
Hannity's America, FNC. It's on now, but will be repeated at 11PM (CST, I think).
Flame all you want, but can you refute it? Seriously?
I saw (but didn't read) a post in passing about Alaska and its meth labs. Shoot, I grew up in Nebraska, and back in the 70s it was totally out of control. Rural areas seem to be magnets for them, regardless of who's in office, so in my opinion neither party who is in control at this time or another can't and won't stop it. It's sad, but true.
HBO Special Hacking Democracy sm
Here is the link to the trailer for the HBO Special Hacking Democracy. There are also links up there to the whole thing (9 parts).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8O43LxV_Xw
Gosh: Hukabee had a special on TV
I'm sorry I missed it because I as out when his program was on. I saw the tail end. I'm sure it was interesting. If anyone knows of a link or something I can go to to see his whole program, please post a link. I'd really like to see what it was all about.
Not wearing any special, but my hubby
wants to bring a cooler with some cold ones in it in case there is a long line. LOL
There's a special on PBS tonight about Lincoln
The author stated Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus and the constitution to justify his causes....so maybe this is why O is following along those lines.
Hope it's not on late. I can't stay awake past 8:30 anymore. 
Who would Jesus Whack. Oh that's charming, just really special. nm
Yes! It's not the rich & special treatment that bothers me.
He made tougher laws for drug crimes. The rich will alwys get better treatment. Paris Hilton's special treatment doesn't scare me. She isn't putting people in jail for her same offense.
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
Inciting hatred is SP's special mission.
this endeavor. The more she does it, the lower those number falls. McCain is back in double-digit deficit territory again.
So I guess your okay with insulting special needs people
by calling Bush "retarded". Have you addressed the people on the other side to ask them to stop calling Bush retarded because of the lack of compassion for the people who really are special needs. My best friends brother was born with mental retardation (yes I know they use another word nowadays) but he gets offended when he hears people calling Bush retarded. But I guess your okay with that. Only on your side do you want it stopped.
You said it alright, there is ignorance in some posters.
I am not offended by any of it. You want to call Bush retarded fine (sure he's one fry short of a happy meal), you want to call people kool-aid drinkers that's fine too because they are. But you don't see me up here asking people to please stop and be nice to only one specific side.
The Jonestown tragedy (and yes it was a tragedy, just like Waco and Heavens gate and all these other cults), and I have great compassion. But that happened in 1978 - 30 years ago. Would be nice if you could use some other excuse to not want to hear people being told they are drinking the kool-aid.
By the way "drinking the kool-aid is not just specific to Jonestown. The saying "Do not drink the kool-aid" does, but the phrase "Having drunk the kool-aid" or "kool-aid drinkers" also means being a strong believer in a particular philosophy or mission - wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues.
From Wikipedia - The expression also refers to the activities of the Merry Pranksters, a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey who, in the early 1960s, traveled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD was legal in the U.S. until 1966). Those who drank the "Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test". "Drinking the Kool-Aid" in that context meant accepting the LSD drug culture, and the Pranksters' "turned on" point of view. These events were described in Tom Wolfe's 1968 classic "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". However the expression is never used figuratively in the book, but only literally.
I do have to laugh at your last paragraph because you must realize that I too find myself "fortunate not to come into personal contact with people such as yourself" (whatever that means), but if it means you don't want to know me personally then I'd just say I feel the same way.
Compassion goes both ways.
My last suggestion then if you want to continue coming would be just to skip over the posts you don't like. I do that a lot and it saves on the frustrations. There are people of all cultures that come to this board and speak their minds (on both sides). Both sides insult the others and that's just the way life goes.
Thanks. Was going to mention there's a special "monitor" board for reports.
Hope it works!!
special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it
must be asked.
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job.
Is Bush a serious person?
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has
occurred on their watch.
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave
way.
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one can
say they didn't see it coming.
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance?
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable.
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it.
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe.
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the
US.
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other
equipment.
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything.
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and
work together.
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5, 2005
Not worried. O's request for a special prosecutor to investigate
DOJ regarding the pub party's umpteenth chapter in dogging this group will undoubtedly uncover both sides to this story...can you say voter suppression? How about election results challenges ala 2000 and 2004? Third time isn't always the charm.
McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
nm
Rights
And I have a right to protect myself, my beliefs, my religion my family, and my country. And I will. Did you see us going to them? They have been attacking us forever, not just on 9-11. Check it out and you will find this is true. I guess if we all just lie down and let them take over our country and attack us whenever they feel like it you will be happy. No country worthy of existence is war free. If you have no stomach for wars then knit things and make cookies or something. Maybe you could write a children's book about a perfect society and imagine yourself there. Just wear a blindfold or something and when others strike out at you then you can lie down and let them have at it. Finally, hatred is not "formulated" it is or is not. It is a feeling. It is prejudiced hostility or animosity. No one is without prejudice, just look at your own point of view versus mine. It is a human thing, hatred. The world is filled with humans, so it follows that hatred will occur along with all other human emotions, feelings, failings and triumphs.
what about his rights?
x
If your rights were to be taken away...(sm)
would you be sick of hearing that too?
Who is assigning rights?
Certainly not you with any credibility. If I lie I expect to be castigated over it because lying is immoral and demonstrates a weak and selfish character. Likewise if I KNOW someone else is a liar I will not fail to rebuke them - it is in fact wrong not to do so. Note also in the midst of your misdirected and uninformed tizzy that no names were mentioned. The liar knows who she is and you don't know, unless of course it's you. If so, change your ways. If not, look for better things to be indignant about - say, corporate oligarchies and the men and women dying in the streets to bring them obscene profits.
The child has no rights?
Have you viewed the video referenced below? Do you really think abortion should be a method of birth control?
he doesn't get any rights
nm
Gun Rights Per the Constitution
I posted this, but didn't see it, so I'm posting it again.
Gun Rights per the Constitution [2008-10-29]
Subject: Gun Rights per the Constitution Can anyone HONESTLY condone this? I'd also like to know who told him he can decide who to take money from and give to another. For those of you making $50K (for example), don't get ticked when possibly half of it goes to an MT who makes $25. That's his plan, and don't try to deny it. Once you go down this road it's basically impossible to turn back. Look at Cuba and Venezuela, for examples. http://www.rense.com/general83/obmaa.htm They will be trying to come for our guns
It doesn't SEEM they have more rights, they do!
My town has more illegals than you can shake a stick at. They are very rude, with the exception of a few, they do NOT try to speak English AT ALL. They do not hesitate to go to our ERs with every little thing and hog up the emergency room; I know this to be a fact! They EXPECT medical treatment and will tell you they have a "right" to be seen. NO THEY DON'T!. They have no rights..they are illegal! They spit out one baby after the other at taxpayers' expense and then I pay to raise their children, educate their children (have to hire MORE teachers to accomodate their refusal to speak English), put clothes on their backs and the list goes on and on.
Heck, one family had the gall to show up in my friend's pet shop (mother couldn't speak a word of English). She had her daughter ask everyone where they could get a German Shephard to breed with some mutt they owned. The owner was trying to tell her they didn't encourage that, that there were enough unwanted puppies and that she should have her pet neutered. The woman just smirked, shrugged her shoulders, said something to her daughter, who in turn looked a little embarrased when she told the lady they were free to own as many pets as they wanted and could breed all they wanted.
The lady tried to explain again that there were plenty of unwanted puppies at the shelter if they wanted a puppy but the lady said "In MY country, we are not told to spay/neuter our animals to which the owner replied, "You are not in YOUR country, you are in the U.S."
They lady (who wanted a better life) replied something to "you are all just a bunch of stupid ******". Her daughter was so embarrassed and looked like she could have died but remember it is that attitude that is breeding many illegal children to be raised with OUR dollars in our country.
Get a grip...........they have the same rights everyone
--
While we still have 1st amendment rights
our opinions, short of using obscenities. As soon as the Thought Police are empowered, this may change, but currently we are free to say what we think.
I personally do not think Obama is stupid or naive, but I do believe he is a suck-up when it comes to currying favor with foreign countries and throwing his own country under the bus to do it. He really believes that the worse he can make this country's history look, the more radiant his countenance will appear in comparison. He truly believes he is the Hope Diamond in a hog wallow. The arrogance is all his.
My rights haven't been violated
again, name someone's rights who have? Nobody can seem to answer that question.
I don't care how he protects us just so he does. We still don't know if what he did was illegal or not, but of course you've already tried and sentenced him.
Again, this is not going to be a winning issue with you all.
Lincoln and civil rights
Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.
Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.
The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
Civil Rights Act voting
Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.
As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Abortion is for men, not reproductive rights
Men can do as they please s*xually and have no long term consequences. If you are pro-choice or pro-life either one it's so clear it's for men NOT for women. Especially when you see how many adult men are bringing in teenager girls to the clinic. Abortion is another way to allow men to use women without consequences to them like responsibility.
Why not exercise responsibility with your rights?
In this day of myriad methods of birth control, there is absolutely no reason for 1.2 million abortions a year. It has grown from endangering life of mother, rape and incest to why bother with birth control, if I get pregnant I can have it flushed. It is amazing to me that any person with a heart in their chest is not appalled by that.
And a great contributor to this has been the gradual relaxation of any kind of moral responsibility...no right or wrong, only shades of gray, no consequences, sex introduced to kids earlier and earlier and earlier, not even allowing them to be kids...saying sex is fine, multiple partners is fine, heck, you don't even have to like the other person.
We are reaping what that kind of lifestyle change has sown.
No rights? They have the right to step up to the plate.
They have the right to support their child. Unfortunately, mother nature did not give them the capacity to bear children. What they do not have the right to do is to force a woman to be their own personal incubator against her will. If they do not want to be stripped of their reproductive rights, perhaps they should take their own measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies (condoms, vasectomy) or practice abstinence and keep their pants zipped.
Yeah and to he** with the baby's rights.
Not a person worthy of my trust. Your trust is yours to give to whoever. Have a nice day.
I'd rather see a woman's rights protected
than an fetus' any day. So you think I should trust McCain/Palin - that's a joke!
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?.....sm
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
By Col. Oliver North
Pierre, S.D. — My son and I are on ground where one of my heroes –- the legendary Joe Foss, U.S. Marine, America's leading ace in aerial combat, Medal of Honor recipient, mentor and friend -– once stood beside me. We're hunting –- and exercising our Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms." We will be back home in time to vote in hopes that this "right of the people" won't be "infringed." But I wonder.
Last week in Ohio, the Obama for President Campaign suggested that Americans need a "second Bill of Rights." The idea –- not a new one for liberals –- came this time from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, as she introduced Senator Obama at a rally in Toledo. Congressman Kaptur enthusiastically endorsed the initiative –- first proffered by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on January 11, 1944. Senator Obama said nothing to disabuse his enthusiastic followers of the notion. It was a bad idea when FDR advocated it -– and it is now.
President Roosevelt made the proposal in his State of the Union address –- delivered over the radio from the White House -– instead of in person before Congress. He claimed that he had "the flu" and that his doctors would not permit him "to go up to the Capitol." The nation was then –- as we are today -– at war. And FDR –- the "indispensable leader" –- was already preparing for his 4th presidential campaign.
In promoting his new "Bill of Rights," Mr. Roosevelt observed that we already enjoyed "certain inalienable political rights –- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." He then said, "They were our rights to life and liberty." Notably, FDR used the past tense and omitted the Second Amendment in its entirety -– no small lapse when nearly 16 million Americans were under arms.
Unfortunately, the idea that our original Bill of Rights is inadequate –- or even archaic –- has achieved new currency with liberals. In enumerating his abbreviated version of the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution, FDR described our rights as "political" and insufficient. The framers saw them as God-given and a sacred trust to deliver unabridged to future generations.
Therein is the challenge in next week's elections. The mainstream media and the polls predict a rout to the left. Does that mean Congress would have free reign to resurrect FDR's "second Bill of Rights"? And, if so, what then happens to the real Bill of Rights -– first handed into our care on December 15, 1791?
The practitioners of politics –- and those who write and speak about it –- claim that these matters are secondary to "pocketbook issues." I was told this week that, "Nobody in America cares about that 'Constitutional stuff' right now with all that's gone wrong with our economy." If that's true, we're in more serious trouble than my 401(k).
Perhaps I have spent too much of my life with young Americans who sacrificed the comforts of home and the company of loved ones to take on the responsibility of protecting the rest of us. They didn't sign up to fight for gold or colonial conquest or "the economy." The soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines I have been covering for the FOX News Channel in Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and the Philippine Archipelago volunteered to defend us and protect our liberty from those who had done us grievous harm.
They raised their right hands and took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." They understand what it means to "bear true faith and allegiance." Most of them have seen parts of the world where there is no freedom and they know that freedom is an idea worth fighting for -– preferably at great distance from home.
Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of young Americans in uniform -– and those who preceded them -– foreign adversaries do not immediately threaten our liberty. But freedom certainly is at risk here at home if our elected leaders and appointed judges believe that our essential freedoms are "political rights." If that is true, then politicians –- and the judges they appoint -– can abridge, alter or eliminate them.
The extraordinary dedication, commitment and tenacity of American men and women in uniform serving the cause of freedom inspires me. Their bravery and perseverance on battlefields around the world should remind us all that freedom is fragile and must be defended to flourish. The Bill of Rights –- including the Second Amendment -– did not come to us gratis or without obligation.
We are blessed in America that we can fend for freedom with ballots instead of bullets. Our charge is to elect those who will deliver those freedoms, intact and undiminished, to those who follow us -– as my son and I now follow in the footsteps of Joe Foss.
Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445386,00.html
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Good for her, they could use some women's rights over there.
xx
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
In a country that is still free for now, we have rights
nm
yes, I will explain human rights to you now sm
Barack Obama has announced that he will close Guantanamo. Throughout the world, this announcement will be understood as an introduction to a new kind of American leadership, a repudiation of the unilateralism of the Bush administration, and a return to diplomacy and the rule of law.
Closing Guantanamo will be a complicated process, which must be accomplished in phases. But the first step clearly is the settlement of the 50 or 60 detainees who have been cleared for release but have nowhere to go. These men have been called the “Guantanamo refugees.” Some of these men are stateless, but most of them simply can’t be returned to their home countries because their lives would be in danger there.
A number of European countries have recently indicated a willingness to take in some of the Guantanamo refugees. But the U.S. must also take some of them.
A group of 17 ethnic Uyghurs from western China have been at Guantanamo almost since its opening. From very early on, they were known to be innocent. In September 2008, a federal court officially cleared them of “enemy combatant” status. In October, Federal Court Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered them released into the U.S, where Uyghur-American families were waiting to take them in. Justice Department lawyers obtained a stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was briefed and argued in late November. The Government argued that only the President has the power to order the transfer of detainees and their release into the U.S. The appeal has not yet been decided by the Court. As President, Obama should either dismiss the appeal and comply with Judge Urbina’s order or exercise his power as President to bring the Uyghurs to the U.S.
Human rights is getting way twisted
I go by the Bible and a much higher authority.
Terrorists...human rights...sm
I don't think the terrorists were too worried about the human rights of the 9-11 victims.
Fighting for your parental rights
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=412082
|
