Well it would work to increase their wages and benefits, which in turn would make the job more desirable. This would attract applicants who are more intelligent and better educated and who would have more motivation to to their job to the best of their abilities. So yes, more qualified and motivated security workers would indeed make us safer and make the system work better.
JaHerer22 on April 2, 2007 at 12:15 PM

You have no clue how the Federal Unionized Government hires people. They always hire people that are no threat to the people that run the bureaucracy. In other words the lowest common denominator. They also use social programs to staff the ranks like welfare queens instead of highly educated applicants. The use racial quotas and set asides. Nepotism and political cronyism rules the day.

That is why is a bad thing to allow public unions in Security Matters. The TSA is joke. You can virtually walk through the metal detectors with a weapon right now and the clueless ex welfare recipient that was hired by the Union does not have a clue.They have failed every security test since they started the TSA under Homeland Security.

That is why nail clippers are considered a security threat while they refuse to use racial profiling.

Think about it the next time they tell you to take your shoes off.

Yes JaHerer22, you are naive.

such an easy target; if only all libs were that totally clueless

Second payoff: Terrorists.

restore the right of habeas corpus to terrorism suspects

I’d say the democrats are giving us plenty of ammo to use in the ‘08 elections. Who in their right mind would vote for people who value votes and the rights of terrorists over their own country?

–These privileges include but are not limited to the right to vote, the right to enter and leave at will, etc.

(If your party had its way, they would all vote: ‘undocumented citizens’, prisoners, the dead, why not combatants?)

–Some basic human rights extend beyond artificial man-made borders and should be granted to all people based simply on the fact that they are human.

(here are some: gay rights, women’s rights, free speech in all forms, religious freedom, dress code freedom, art freedom, history as it happened freedom, etc.)

–These rights include but are not limited to the right not to be murdered, raped, enslaved, etc. We can all agree (I hope) that murder is unacceptable, regardless of the nationally of the victim.

(of course we agree – they don’t)

–I would include the right of habeas corpus and the right to a jury trial in the category of basic human rights to be granted all persons regardless of nationality. While this is clearly not as cut and dry as say the right not to be enslaved, I believe these are reasonable expectations.

(why should we go beyond Geneva, or any other international treaty we signed, when others who sign/or don’t hardly ever respect theirs? – we obide by our signatures, domestic and international – I thought you believe in internationalism)

JaHerer22 on April 2, 2007 at 3:01 PM

simply on the fact that they are human

But they are hardly that – they would rape, enslave and/or murder you/me in a heartbeat.

We are superior JaHerer22 – a la Geneva we could have lined them up and shot them all, but didn’t. Was already mentioned by someone, above.

In regards to gitmo, we have fullfilled our obligations per the Geneva conventions. Other then trying and shooting them that is. We have actually been more then understanding in letting them live. They are not POW’s, since they were not wearing the uniform of their country when they fought. They are provacateurs, spies, and terrorist.

As for a “Christian POV”–as I recall, Christians believe they will be judged by a King, or Christ. Not by a jury. And if I was tried by a jury in Iran, I’d be even MORE scared.

JaHerer22, please reconcile these two quotes. If you can put as much verve and energy of your “freedom-loving” into the latter, then I might listen to you and yours…

Entelechy on April 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Posting after JaHerer22’s latest, I’d like to say, “DAMN, YOU ROCK, Entelechy”.

–I would include the right of habeas corpus and the right to a jury trial in the category of basic human rights to be granted all persons regardless of nationality. While this is clearly not as cut and dry as say the right not to be enslaved, I believe these are reasonable expectations.

And that’s where you’re dangerously wrong. SCOTUS just today decided against your position, as it has consistently ruled since the republic’s founding. A person’s status before the law and Constitution are relevant to their disposition in the courts. The Gitmo detainees aren’t merely criminals–they’re enemy combatants. That’s a whole different legal category. They can legally be held until the cessation of hostilities, without trial, so that they never enter combat against us again. That’s the point of holding them–not to try them, but to keep them from re-entering the war. We can try them in military tribunals since their acts also constitute crimes against our people, and since they are enemy combatants, not citizens, and not mere criminals. That has been the law for generations. Were we wrong to try Nazi saboteurs via military tribunals during WWII? Are we wrong now to have a different legal system for the military then the one we have for civilians? You’re attempting to re-write precedent to satisfy your need to feel good. Read some history. Learn some precedent. Bring a single fact to the table, for once in your life.

Granting them a right to trial in civilian courts gives them more or less the same rights you would have if you got picked up for petty theft. Is that what you want? That’s what you’re giving them.

Note: We can’t exactly let POW’s go in a time of war to continue to attack our troops… hopefully we can agree on that. Oh, and we aren’t sure when the war will be over.

SO, possible sentencing. Life in Prison. Death. Is there another option I’ve missed that avoids having them go back home at kill our troops? Hmm, not really.

How odd that you’d want to force sentencing before we could possibly let them go back to their home countries; thereby forcing us to more extreme measures than treating them as POW’s and simply holding them until the cessation of the war.

Basically you’ve just decided that none of them can get a sentence less than life in prison if it seems likely they’d fight against U.S. Soldiers should they be realeased… especially as I’ve never heard of a variable sentencing policy (like you can be released 2 years after the person you mugged dies, or some such).

Why do you hate them so much that you aren’t willing to treat them like POW’s and let them go home once the war is done? Heck, we didn’t even do that to most of the Japanese and Germans we captured during WW2…

Bryan on April 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM

You’re completely misrepresenting everything I’m saying and bastardizing my entire argument. Since you don’t seem to be able to read and comprehend sentences very well, I’ll try to lay things out for you with bullet points:

–Terrorists or any other foreigner should not be afforded the privileges of an American citizen

–These privileges include but are not limited to the right to vote, the right to enter and leave at will, etc.

–Some basic human rights extend beyond artificial man-made borders and should be granted to all people based simply on the fact that they are human.

–These rights include but are not limited to the right not to be murdered, raped, enslaved, etc. We can all agree (I hope) that murder is unacceptable, regardless of the nationally of the victim.

–I would include the right of habeas corpus and the right to a jury trial in the category of basic human rights to be granted all persons regardless of nationality. While this is clearly not as cut and dry as say the right not to be enslaved, I believe these are reasonable expectations.

–This has nothing to do with cheapening citizenship or giving away sovergnity; in fact it has nothing to do with citizenship whatsoever. It’s all about treating people with respect and dignity regardless of how they would treat you.

–I know you’ve read the Bible Bryan, I’m sure you’ve heard of the Golden Rule…treat others as you wish to be treated…not how they treat you…as you wish to be treated. If I was ever accused of a crime by this country or another I would certainly wish to be granted habeas corpus and a trial by jury; therefore I believe in granting those rights to others, regardless of what they have done or what I think of them.

Our societies are diametricaly oppsoed. We can not stoop to their level. They can only rise to ours. But until they do then their can be no quarter from us. These unlawfull combatants flout international law into our faces. They kill, maim, and butcher indiscriminatly. The law is clear. They should be tired, and if found guilty then they should be shot. but they should not be tried as American citizens, nor should they be tried under our laws. Their are international laws for a reason.

Their only rule is to kill all that oppose them, and to die a glorious death. Our rules are a bit superior then that.

The only part worth pointing out is the delicious irony: the liberals fall over themselves defending the absolutely anti-liberal. Modern Islam is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-free speech, anti-abortion, anti-religious freedom … it is, in a sentence, the absolute embodiment of everything that liberals SHOULD be opposed to.

Professor Blather on April 1, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Entelechy on April 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM

I have often wondered this. Why would the SOH be hopnobing with Syria and wanting to talk to Iran. Is she ignorant? I only wished they would have made her wear a burka and serve the men tea.

I, and many freedom-loving Americans like to believe that basic rights such as the right to a trial and habeas corpus extend beyond just American citizens. Call us naive, but we like to think being human, having a soul, being capable of rational thought should entitle you to these basic human rights…

JaHerer22 on April 2, 2007 at 12:15 PM

From the KOS/MM thread, still up today:

The only part worth pointing out is the delicious irony: the liberals fall over themselves defending the absolutely anti-liberal. Modern Islam is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-free speech, anti-abortion, anti-religious freedom … it is, in a sentence, the absolute embodiment of everything that liberals SHOULD be oppossed to.

Professor Blather on April 1, 2007 at 11:48 PM

JaHerer22, please reconcile these two quotes. If you can put as much verve and energy of your “freedom-loving” into the latter, then I might listen to you and yours…

Terrorists captured on battlefields engaged in combat against US troops, or captured in faraway places plotting attacks against Americans, should have the exact same rights as US citizens.

This today from the SCOTUS:

Clement also argued that the appeals court was correct in holding that aliens outside the United States have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.

If we stoop to their level and play by their rules

So granting them all the rights of citizens is the only way to avoid “stooping to their level and playing by their rules” now? We should of course not wage war on them at all, anywhere, no matter what they do then, right? Because it would just be stooping to their level and playing by their rules.

Foolish. Naive. Dangerous.

If that’s all the confidence we have in ourselves and the reasons we should win, then we’re doomed.

JaHerer22 on April 2, 2007 at 12:52 PM

The “stoop to their level” argument is the one that the left always brings out. We have rules of engagement, if the other side wishes to dispense with those rules, than they have established the rules and we fight for survival using their rules. Our guidlines are exactly that, guidlines that are honorable, but if they want to take it to another level, than so be it. I don’t believe in killing either, but rape my woman or child…and you die.

That is why Ghandi was such a fool, he wanted the British to lay down their arms, and surrender to the Germans, he wanted the Jews to allow themselves to be taken to the chambers with no resistance. He was using the same argument.

Because we are inheritly good, we can cross that line and cross back…these swines live “across” the line. If you believe in America, than you know we can do what is necessary, and still retain our greatness.

Of course they don’t believe as I do. Of course if I was captured in their country I would never see a courtroom and would probably be executed or worse immediately. But that’s why we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys. Have we forgotten that? If we stoop to their level and play by their rules we lose our moral authority and tear down any distinction of us being noble warriors for justice and them being evil, bloodthirsty thugs and become just a bunch of barbarians killing each other because we’ve got nothing better to do

Then follow the appropriate law to the letter, specifically, determine if they are lawful or unlawful combatants. If the determination that they are a lawful combatant, i.e. they wear a uniform, imprison them for the duration of hostilities. If the determination is that they are unlawful combatants, they should be immediately shot. If they are neither of these, they should be returned to their country of capture.

None of the people in question are common criminals, nor should they be treated as such.

Of course they don’t believe as I do. Of course if I was captured in their country I would never see a courtroom and would probably be executed or worse immediately. But that’s why we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys. Have we forgotten that? If we stoop to their level and play by their rules we lose our moral authority and tear down any distinction of us being noble warriors for justice and them being evil, bloodthirsty thugs and become just a bunch of barbarians killing each other because we’ve got nothing better to do.

JaHerer22 on April 2, 2007 at 12:52 PM

What happens when one these guys gets acquitted, goes off to plot, and succeeds in killing hundreds (if not thousands) of people with a bomb or by some other means? What do you say then? Or is that just the price we pay for giving them the same rights as our citizens? Would you feel the same way if it were your family and/or friends that were slaughtered by that guy – knowing full well this could have been prevented??

Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president

That is the democrats only concern: to attack President Bush as often and as publicly as possible. The democrats are not concerned with the “rights” of the terrorists, they are not concerned with improving security at airports, they are not concerned with preventing terrorist attacks here in America and abroad; they are only concerned with fighting a political war with this administration in an attempt to regain control of the White House in 2009.