Last week, our illustrious Supreme Court decided to give Guantanamo inmates the right of Habeus Corpus AND the same right to trial that you and I get. Our soldiers are disemboweled and beheaded on the Arabic version of youtube, and their soldiers are given our best attorneys. So now WE THE PEOPLE have granted more rights to IED makers and deployers than we have to our own soldiers.
I'm starting to get really pissed off now.
Today, the same knuckleheads on the Supreme Court made the declaration that child rape is not punishable by the death penalty because the Constitution says you cannot inflict "cruel and unusual punishment" on anyone. So Uncle Bob, 6-3, 230 pounds, rapes his 5 year old niece Cindy. Cindy's pelvic bone stresses and fractures under the incredible strain of Uncle Bobs violent thrusts; her flesh shearing and ripping from his inhuman advances, blood everywhere. This doesn't even take into account the screaming, wailing, and begging coming out of Cindy's tiny lips and mouth. Her tears of terror flowing like a river. Years later, when Cindy is contemplating suicide because Uncle Bob only received 9 months in prison and he came back angrier at Cindy because she turned him in, and so proceeded to rape her continuously over the years in ways far more sinister and violent than the original act, let's contemplate today's Highest Court decision. As 15 year old Cindy hangs from a rope in the family bathroom, let's all pat ourselves on the back for not being too tough on dear old uncle Bob.
Think I'm being too graphic? If you can't understand what I'm trying to convey here, then I suggest I haven't been graphic enough.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court is expected to pass judgement on the city of Washington about citizen's right or non right to possess hand guns. I hope they see they had better take those hand guns away, because we are moving alarmingly close to a time where we will use them against our own lawmakers. Quick history lesson for you: The constitution says nothing about sport hunting; it says nothing about target practice; and it says nothing about collecting guns for profit or just for fun. It clearly says the right to own guns is two-fold: To take arms to protect ourselves from a foreign invasion, or to protect ourselves in the event of a government that loses its mind, and begins to hurt the populace. The founding fathers had intimate knowledge of the inner workings of a government that went against the will of the people, and when that government followed them over to the New World, those founding fathers said, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, we warned you. Now, fuck you." And they blew the King and his court the hell outta here.
These 2 and possibly a 3rd decision are going to create situtations where a soldier has to decide whether or not to kill when they simply used to capture, and then they'll be courts marshaled for it. The rape thing is going to create situations where confused and angry parents consider vigilante justice, where they will in turn be given a harsher sentence than the man who raped their daughter. This and many other things will force the common man and woman to revolt, and the common man and woman are what make up the fiber of this country. That's the way it is and has always been, and if you push those common men and women too hard, eventually they'll push back. The American family, the rights of the American family, the strength of the American family has always been the cornerstone of this nation. It is what separates us from everyone else in the world.
*&%$ around with the sovereignty of the American family too much more, and we're going to have trouble....biiiiig trouble.
I'm not advocating revolution, I'm just warning you that we have gone - and continue to go - on a far too liberal path, one that has no side road to turn around on. If it continues, there will be a shitload of hell to pay. The rules and the policies are being challenged and changed every day. It is the common man and woman that is in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting. It is the common woman teaching at our public schools and mothering her children. It is the commonality of everyone that preserves our right to protect ourselves and our families from demons, morons, and sociopaths.
Sometimes, "change" can be bad. If you don't believe me, just look at the Supreme Court and what they're doing. Or better yet, ask Ron Goldman Sr. if he thinks the liberalistic judicial system is good just the way it is.
You better stand clear when he starts to answer you, though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
12 comments:
Ok. Just because I am who I am, you KNOW I'm going to comment.
1. We have not granted IED makers and deployers any more rights than we have to our own soldiers. Our own soldiers have more rights than they do. As long as they are on our soil. Which is kinda what we're over there fighting for. At least in theory. You know, the whole "human rights" "don't treat people like crap" "free and open elections" line.
2. The SC ruling today did not rule that a child rapist gets out of jail in 9 months. He just can't face the death penalty for rape. A 19 year old who has sex with a 14 year old can face a civil commitment as a serial sex offender and end up in the psych ward until he dies. That's the ruling from last year. The bottom line is we don't yet view rape as being as bad as murder. It's bad...just not THAT bad. This is the general view of the public. Call it gender politics, call it an unrealistic view of the world, call it penis envy...it is what it is. But the reality is that one who rapes a child is likely not going to get off with 9 months and probation...he's looking at more like life without parole.
3. The decision in the handgun case is scheduled to be announced at 9AM CDT tomorrow morning. It will rock the foundation of society in a way that the Supremes haven't been able to rock society for 30 years. It is fundamental, regardless of which side of the fence you are on. However, as is true in most of the Supreme's cases, it really isn't about the handgun. Just like Roe isn't really about abortion. It isn't so much the ruling tomorrow that is at issue. It is how the courts across the country will interpret the ruling that matters.
But...with exception to the details as outlined above...Word.
Lawgirl:
1) They are POW's, which means they should have no more a right to due process in a US mainland courtroom than a burglar from Rome, Italy. Their incarceration is governed by the Geneva Convention...not the Bill of Rights.
2) I never said a child rapist gets out after 9 months, nor did I say the SC said that either. That was an exageration to get my point across, a point that I must have failed to properly convey. You're correct on your next point. The SC obviously views rape as an annoyance, like diaper rash or losing your direct tv signal in a storm. Again, an exageration to make a point...but you get the idea.
3)Lawyers and courts need to turn over the constitution and read what is on the back. In short it says, "Listen up you fucking dunces, the 2nd amendment says 'THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS'. That means everyone, not everyone BUT people in DC, Tacoma, and Des Moines."
Sorry Lawgirl. You're one of my favorite reads, but I beg to differ - at least partially or in spirit - with you on this one.
JL4
Now THIS, my dear, is fun...
1. By my reading of the actual ruling of the court, (a) the people in Guantanamo are not POW's, they are "detainees". If they were POW's the US would have to follow the Geneva Convention. But because they are NOT POW's, the Geneva Convention can be ignored...and it has been. (b) The ruling does not grant the detainees "due process", or any "constitutional rights". It extends the power of habius corpus to those who are detained. Simply put, those who are detained have the right to a hearing about WHY they are being detained. They do not have the right to free speech, free travel, free press, free religion, bear arms, or to avoid cruel and unusual punishment. They simply have the right to know why they are being held. And when the "tribunals" that are currently in place do not answer that question, they have the right to ask the courts of the United States to answer that question for them. NOW, as part of that right, they do not have the right to free counsel, they do not have the right to 3 hots and a cot, they do not have the right to congigal visits. They just get a day in court. That's it. The end. All in all, in the land of freedom and opportunity...I don't have a huge issue with that.
2. I got your point. And I see your point. The fact that the supremes say that you can't put someone to death for rape is controvercial, and quite frankly I don't know where I come down on the issue. The big kicker for me is the fact that the supremes have said that each individual state doesn't have the ability to decide on its own how they want to deal with crime in their community. This is the point of having states, of individual state rule. Of seperation of power...this is the issue for me. If some old fart raped my sister and got away with it, I'd kill him. I'd face the consequences. That's me. But I don't think it's right, as a voter, that I have decided to live in a state that punished in a way I deem appropriate...only to have some guy in a black robe tell me I'm wrong. That's my beef.
3. The actual text of the 2nd ammendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now, as one of the fucking dunces, I see the words "right" and "to" and "bear arms" all located in that ammendment. However, I also see the words "regulated" and "militia" and "security" and "free state".
The interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is a debate that has been raging through the academic fields for over a century. I don't have the solution. My opinion is clouded by my views on government, as stated above. If one state, by and through the voters, determines that it is appropriate to carry a gun...then who the hell is some guy in a black robe to tell them they are wrong? I understand that the whole purpose of the supremes is to interpret the constitution. But I think at some point you have to go back to the basics. "By the people, for the people." When the people have spoken, shut up and listen.
Well said. You are a credit to your fucking dunce fraternity, Lawgirl. :-)
PS My post was long enough, so I decided against the whole militia explanation. Even though I'm retired military, and in being so, I'm unable to read...I just cut that part out for brevity. But I DID say that in a shortened form.
Peace
One last thing, and I'll move along. The ICRC (International Commission of the Red Cross) has practically set up an off-site office down at Gitmo, looking for any - and I mean ANY - infraction by the U.S.
Recently, the ICRC filed a human relations complaint with the U.N. and other human rights groups. The charges turned out to be this:
1) Not enough skittles (no shit)
2) Too much cheese in the diet (again, no shit)
3) The soccer balls are too hard (yep. No shit, once again)
The POW's .... ummmm ..."detainees" at Gitmo say the raisins are causing the shits, and the ICRC starts making charges against the US Goverment. It's simply so much bullshit.
Ever hear of Staff Sergeant Matthew Maupin of Ohio?
No, I'm sure you haven't. Idiot assholes in Iraq filmed him being taken away by Al Quaeda operatives in April of 2004. He was missing for 4 years.
In those 4 years, he never had a phone call, never was given a Bible, didn't get any mail, didn't have any SKITTLES, and most importantly -----
NEVER GOT A VISIT FROM THE ICRC.
He was seen in a video on Arabic Jijad youtube, sitting in his desert camo fatigues surrounded by five masked Al Quaeda social coordinators at gunpoint. He was urged to tell all of America about how awful and terrible we are, and he refused.
This was the last we saw of Stadf Sergeant Matthew Maupin.
So if you want to talk with me about law...or the rule of law...the constitution and its consequences, remember you're talking to a life-time Army man.
A man who sees Staff Sergeant Mathew Maupins eyes in that video, while others talk of legal precedent and the "rights" of people who kill children and declare it's ok because they did it because their God said it was ok to do so.
Remember: Staff Sergeant Matthew Maupin never received jack shit from his captors. Nuthin'. Nada.
You wanna split hairs over POW vs. Detainee?
Split away. I'm with SSG Maupin and everyone like him.
At the risk of driving off other potential comments, I'll make one more.
I too am with SSG Maupin and everyone like him, with him, near him, before him, and after him. I've never served. I can not speak for him. But my belief in what they are fighting for is to end what he went through. To stop behavior such as that in any form. I don't believe the military's role is that of peace, but that of freedom.
For that reason, for us, those of use who don't have the calling to stand on the front line, we who are left at home...to look in the face of the enemy and say "do as we say, not as we do" goes against what I believe our men and women are fighting for.
They are in a land void of freedom and democracy, fighting to defend freedom and democracy. They do not get freedom and democracy there because it doesn't exist there. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE FIGHTING.
But for us, those of us left behind, to let the lines of our constitution blur because the war hasn't been won means we have lost and SSG Maupin died in vain. I refuse to believe that any soldier's life given in service to MY country is given in vain on my watch.
The protections provided by our constituion are not deserved by all who recieve them. But a gift freely given by all who have fought to maintain its presence through history. It's a gift that is given by lives, limbs, blood, tears, pain, and sacrifice. It should not be denied lightly.
I believe deeply in the law. Our law is founded and premised on our constitution. Our constitution is founded on the premise that "We the people, in a desire to be self governing." An attempt to escape tyrany in every form. WE are the gatekeepers against tyrany in every form, and the law has remedies for each form. Even when the law itself becomes tyranical.
The law...the constitution...is not perfect, but it's the best one out there so far, and I will do my best to keep it so.
JL4, you're arguing with a lawyer. What's the point? My brother got a law degree just so he could get paid to argue. He'd been doing it for free for years!
I don't mean to brag, but I'm NOT a lawyer. How 'bout if we start regulating ammunition? That's not mentioned in the constitution, is it?
Karen,
Regulating ammunition will be the next step. You can count upon it.
PS I happen to LIKE the Lawgirl, though...even if she can out-argue me.
I like law girl, too. She's intelligent, well-spoken, highly educated, and for some reason, thinks that's no big deal. They don't just give away those letters behind the names for sitting in chairs. And she's absolutely right about our constitution not being perfect, but the best one out there.
And I don't even really like Skittles.
interesting post. i THINK you were talking about our (the U.S.) society in general, using the Supreme Court as a specific example, but I could be wrong.
Twice this week I've read arguments that it's okay for U.S. servicemen to be tortured and abused because "they knew what they were getting into" when they signed up. We used to call it "keeping the faith", but I haven't seen alot of that lately. The faith has, in alot of ways, been broken between the servicemen and the people back home who they represent. Nowhere near as bad as the Vietnam conflict. There are still alot of citizens who appreciate and who show their appreciation enthusiastically. One of those people who said it's okay for servicemen and contractors to be beheaded turned around and said all the Gitmo individuals should be released and apologized to.
What troubles me more are the apologists who say that we deserved 9/11 and similar terrorist actions against us. That somehow we deserved it.
A friend of mine said he'll never move to California because of one case. Apparently a man woke up and heard people in his yard, attempting to break into his car so he shot them. The cops showed up and arrested the man for manslaughter, saying that he didn't have the right to defend his property. While I have received extensive training in the concepts of "proportionate use of force" and "escalation of force" I also appreciate the ability to make a stand and protect self and property.
The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" always makes me think of Starship Troopers. I think Heinlein was right. For punishment to be effective, it MUST be both cruel and unusual. If a guilty counscience doesn't keep people honest, maybe their survival instinct will.
At the end of the day, I think maybe Americans don't face enough hardships anymore. The majority of us don't know what it means to fight our way up out of the depths of poverty, what it means to only have ourselves and family to rely on, and how iffy family could be. I look at my family tree and in years past, it wasn't uncommon for half the kids in a family to die before they reached adulthood. I think alot of people really doubt the existance of pure evil in the world because they haven't seen it first hand. Guys like you who have, are just humored when you try to educate and inform. You're just "telling stories".
Sean,
You have been and contine to be, one of my heroes.
Chin up and head down, dude.
JL4
Sean - Nice to know you're still fighting the good fight over there. Thanks.
Post a Comment