RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights.

RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 1:44:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Merc the problem in your analogy with Europe and prisoners of war is that all too often these are not people taken prisoner on a battlefield. mike, Define "battlefield"? I didn't know I was working in one. I'm sure all the clerical workers and restaurant workers didn't think they deserved hazard pay on 9/10/01. quote: Yes we are at war we are also in murky waters and in danger of abandoning that which makes us better than those who would assail us It may be surprising, but I don't represent that we are "better". We have the foundation to be better but our standards and laws are not everyones. I find it incredibly ironic that this point is used in this discussion. Isn't one of the arguments against US intervention in the middle east pointed to applying a global 'Pax Americanus'? That's bad when it comes to the goal of setting up a Democratic Iraq. A democracy that can, and has every right, to vote to expel the US. At the same time we want to apply US Constitutional law to people taken from the 'battlefield', wherever that was in the world. By the way, I use the Iraq war justification as a reference only. I think we should leave and let the locals get on with their century, no check that, millenniums old tradition of killing each other by the grace of their god and religious beliefs. Merc it is a given that the war on terrorism makes the term "battlefield" a little vague,hence my argument with your original analogy.As far as claiming we are better than those who would fly planes of innocents into buildings of innocents,I for one am comfortable making such a claim,and would like to remain so

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 1:58:52 PM)
"The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees. The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petition of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally." AP

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:00:54 PM)
quote: As far as claiming we are better than those who would fly planes of innocents into buildings of innocents,I for one am comfortable making such a claim,and would like to remain so mike, I assume you are speaking individually, in which case I'd agree. My position should be taken in context of a collective of people. A people who required troops to escort a black woman into to previously all white public school. A people who generated a Timothy McVeigh resulting in the death of 168 and injuries to 800 more, including children. A people who collectively continue to ignore the massacre occurring in Dafur. Individuals on both sides bring with them their individual integrity. Collectively the ability to match atrocity to atrocity exists on both sides of the battle line. I believe it is important to point out the hypocrisy of both sides sanctimonious positions.

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:06:36 PM)
So what's next, when we start questioning them in Iraq and then executing them will U.S. courts try to claim "jurisdiction" "over" Iraq? This is starting to get rediculous. It's downright sillyness! Now, "foreign nationals" are subject to the "laws" of the U.S.??? I wonder how Europeans feel about being, "subject to U.S. law" according to our judges? Are they fucking serious? And, "extrordinary times" call for "extrordinary measures." Those judges don't get out much do they? Now we can just revert to the Geneva Conventions Accords and execute these people as "spies." "Pleeeeese, send me to GTMO!" "Bang!"

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:07:56 PM)
The issue is that the Constitution of the United States has been happily trampled on for too long: the founding fathers may not have foreseen 9/11, but I argue that if the US Government wishes to change the Constitution and do away with habeas corpus, it ought to do so lawfully.

Raechard -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:08:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I wonder how Europeans feel about being, "subject to U.S. law" according to our judges? Ask the Natwest 3.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:18:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol The issue is that the Constitution of the United States has been happily trampled on for too long: the founding fathers may not have foreseen 9/11, but I argue that if the US Government wishes to change the Constitution and do away with habeas corpus, it ought to do so lawfully. So it is your position that the US Constitution is law not only in the US but throughout the world, and is applicable to warfare? That is a very US centrist position. I wouldn't agree with that or try to justify enforcing that position. It seems extremely egotistical. Should that same rational apply to all the rules in the Countries many of these people were captured? It would make more sense to apply their local law here. Better yet, turn them over to a US version in this group of 'freedom fighters': http://www.bigducky.com/videos/beheading_videos/armstrong_beheading.htm Who knows since these fine upstanding representatives of their cause were masked, maybe one of them is amount those soon to be released by this wonderful ruling you support.

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:19:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: As far as claiming we are better than those who would fly planes of innocents into buildings of innocents,I for one am comfortable making such a claim,and would like to remain so mike, I assume you are speaking individually, in which case I'd agree. My position should be taken in context of a collective of people. A people who required troops to escort a black woman into to previously all white public school. A people who generated a Timothy McVeigh resulting in the death of 168 and injuries to 800 more, including children. A people who collectively continue to ignore the massacre occurring in Dafur. Individuals on both sides bring with them their individual integrity. Collectively the ability to match atrocity to atrocity exists on both sides of the battle line. I believe it is important to point out the hypocrisy of both sides sanctimonious positions. I dissagree on Darfur. It's not the responsibility of the U.S. or,...any other country to be intervening in the internal affairs of Darfur or any other country. (See "Iraq.")

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:23:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: As far as claiming we are better than those who would fly planes of innocents into buildings of innocents,I for one am comfortable making such a claim,and would like to remain so mike, I assume you are speaking individually, in which case I'd agree. My position should be taken in context of a collective of people. A people who required troops to escort a black woman into to previously all white public school. A people who generated a Timothy McVeigh resulting in the death of 168 and injuries to 800 more, including children. A people who collectively continue to ignore the massacre occurring in Dafur. Individuals on both sides bring with them their individual integrity. Collectively the ability to match atrocity to atrocity exists on both sides of the battle line. I believe it is important to point out the hypocrisy of both sides sanctimonious positions. I disagree on Darfur. It's not the responsibility of the U.S. or,...any other country to be intervening in the internal affairs of Darfur or any other country. (See "Iraq.") I refer to Darfur in reference to ignoring what is occurring, not believing or supporting intervention. I agree - the point was not clear. I would like to see the same voices that were raised to oppose South African apartheid brought to bear against the status quo in Darfur.

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:25:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: As far as claiming we are better than those who would fly planes of innocents into buildings of innocents,I for one am comfortable making such a claim,and would like to remain so mike, I assume you are speaking individually, in which case I'd agree. My position should be taken in context of a collective of people. A people who required troops to escort a black woman into to previously all white public school. A people who generated a Timothy McVeigh resulting in the death of 168 and injuries to 800 more, including children. A people who collectively continue to ignore the massacre occurring in Dafur. Individuals on both sides bring with them their individual integrity. Collectively the ability to match atrocity to atrocity exists on both sides of the battle line. I believe it is important to point out the hypocrisy of both sides sanctimonious positions. Merc not trying to start be argumentive here ,but what I am speaking of is a system that would supply those troop to escort that black girl into that previously all white school,a system that having "produced "a McVeigh that grants him due process convicts and than locks the bastard up ,in that order step by step.As to the continuing massacre in Dafur that is a shame held by all those who witness and do nothing.Basically all I'm championing here is that America live up to its ideals especially when not doing so is popular and or expediant...I ascribe to the belief that a more perfect set of ideals for the compact of man with his government has not yet been written and we harm ourselves when we stray from them

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:29:48 PM)
Unfortunately yes, what goes on in the United States has repercussions throughout the world - but that is not why I argue in favour of respecting the law. Do you think laws should be disregarded whenever it suits our individual purpose, and if so, what is the point of them? Why would you argue otherwise, especially in the light of your frequently referencing the Constitution and the people who wrote it? Why not change it, if that's what you think is necessary? I'm genuinely curious.

Raechard -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:34:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Who knows since these fine upstanding representatives of their cause were masked, maybe one of them is amount those soon to be released by this wonderful ruling you support. Isn't that the key: who knows? The whole process is shrouded in mystery for so called security reasons. Therefore nobody really knows who these people are, more transparency is required otherwise obviously anyone can argue anything about the people being detained. One person can argue they are dangerous and another can argue they are people just caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they don't have a proper process then who are we trusting that these people are indeed guilty of any crime? Who’s say so is so powerful that a person can be held without trial for more than five years? If these people are so bad then present the evidence in a U.S. court and you’ll see they are convicted. From my perspective it looks like insufficient evidence to prosecute any of them and they are merely suspected of being guilty and the authorities know any trial would be lost. You can't pick and choose who you give legal rights to.

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:40:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard You can't pick and choose who you give legal rights to. It shouldn't be okay to do so, no, not in a country where the executive powers answer to the legislative. Imagine a place where the executive powers just disregard the law as they go along just because it suits their purpose. Did anyone say 'dictatorship'?

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: As far as claiming we are better than those who would fly planes of innocents into buildings of innocents,I for one am comfortable making such a claim,and would like to remain so mike, I assume you are speaking individually, in which case I'd agree. My position should be taken in context of a collective of people. A people who required troops to escort a black woman into to previously all white public school. A people who generated a Timothy McVeigh resulting in the death of 168 and injuries to 800 more, including children. A people who collectively continue to ignore the massacre occurring in Dafur. Individuals on both sides bring with them their individual integrity. Collectively the ability to match atrocity to atrocity exists on both sides of the battle line. I believe it is important to point out the hypocrisy of both sides sanctimonious positions. I disagree on Darfur. It's not the responsibility of the U.S. or,...any other country to be intervening in the internal affairs of Darfur or any other country. (See "Iraq.") I refer to Darfur in reference to ignoring what is occurring, not believing or supporting intervention. I agree - the point was not clear. I would like to see the same voices that were raised to oppose South African apartheid brought to bear against the status quo in Darfur. I loved Ronald Reagan and he was the last Republican president I voted for and he did a lot of good things but he did some bad things too. Like trying to "spread democracy" in Central America! Anytime our govt. uses the term, "spread democracy" it's really a code for, "let's have civilian "contractors" who are our friends and who many people in govt own financial interests in Rape the U.S. Taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars", like what is going on in Iraq presently. Anyone who thinks that U.S. Troops would go into Darfur, kill the "insurgents" and then get out within 60 days must surely believe in the Easter Bunny. Our Troops would be there for years, the "contractors" through their lobbyists on K street would get our congress to "appropriate" (read, "steal") tens or hundreds of billions of Taxpayer Dollars to start building.....you guessed it, "hospitals, "roads", "bridges", "schools", and all kinds of other things! Compliments of the U.S. Taxpayers of course! Oh! And of course we'd "need" another Billion dollar "embassey" out in the middle of nowhere in the fucking dessert just like Iraq to serve as a "conduit" for "foreign aid" and massive "immigration" from the Sudan to the U.S. Oh, and to accomplish this you could expect to hear phrases like, ...oh, I dunno....maybe "ethnic cleansing" or surely "genocide" or maybe "human rights". Oh, and "Arpithide" (sp) that's a Good one! The people in our govt would be leading the Taxpayers down the primrose path just like a "U.M." Molestor leading a "U.M." into the woods to look for a puppy. Either way, someone's going to get Raped! Am I close?

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:48:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Unfortunately yes, what goes on in the United States has repercussions throughout the world - but that is not why I argue in favour of respecting the law. Do you think laws should be disregarded whenever it suits our individual purpose, and if so, what is the point of them? Why would you argue otherwise, especially in the light of your frequently referencing the Constitution and the people who wrote it? Why not change it, if that's what you think is necessary? I'm genuinely curious. Was a time not so long ago Kittin when you could have typed fortunately instead of unfortunately

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:51:57 PM)
quote: I'm championing here is that America live up to its ideals especially when not doing so is popular and or expediant...I ascribe to the belief that a more perfect set of ideals for the compact of man with his government has not yet been written and we harm ourselves when we stray from them One distinction between us is that I don't believe they should be selectively applied outside our borders to selective individuals in selective circumstances. Another is I don't think in this case the US is straying from these 'ideals'; especially when considering the basic reason for government's existence - protecting the people being served. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Unfortunately yes, what goes on in the United States has repercussions throughout the world - but that is not why I argue in favor of respecting the law. Do you think laws should be disregarded whenever it suits our individual purpose, and if so, what is the point of them? Why would you argue otherwise, especially in the light of your frequently referencing the Constitution and the people who wrote it? Why not change it, if that's what you think is necessary? I'm genuinely curious. That is a strange stance that requires a weird dichotomy that I don't understand. You begin the sentence with "unfortunately"; yet argue for applying US Constitutional Law to non-US citizens captured in a was occurring in non-US territory. Would it be safe to say, that it is "unfortunate" when your agenda isn't served, and "fortunate" in this case under Judge Kennedy's interpretation? Such a position is impossible to argue and I won't try. It is also apparent that we are at fundamentally different starting points. I don't believe US laws, and especially US 'morality' (whatever that is) should be applied outside US borders. I'm also not interested in changing it to make that so. The Constitution should stand, or fail, on its own, within the borders of the US. Its my position its weakness derives from selective enforcement. The most case in point being the treatment of illegal workers and the criminals hiring and profiting by the local, State, and nationally sanctioned ignoring of those sovereignty law.

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 2:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Unfortunately yes, what goes on in the United States has repercussions throughout the world - but that is not why I argue in favour of respecting the law. Do you think laws should be disregarded whenever it suits our individual purpose, and if so, what is the point of them? Was a time not so long ago Kittin when you could have typed fortunately instead of unfortunately A long, long, long time ago then [&:] .

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 3:01:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Unfortunately yes, what goes on in the United States has repercussions throughout the world - but that is not why I argue in favour of respecting the law. Do you think laws should be disregarded whenever it suits our individual purpose, and if so, what is the point of them? Why would you argue otherwise, especially in the light of your frequently referencing the Constitution and the people who wrote it? Why not change it, if that's what you think is necessary? I'm genuinely curious. LMFAO! Kittin, you mean "All" Laws? Gee! Now just "which" laws would you be in favor of ignoring? I'm having a brain fart here, I can't remember! lol

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 3:03:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I'm having a brain fart here, I can't remember! lol Only one?

DomKen -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 3:07:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol The issue is that the Constitution of the United States has been happily trampled on for too long: the founding fathers may not have foreseen 9/11, but I argue that if the US Government wishes to change the Constitution and do away with habeas corpus, it ought to do so lawfully. So it is your position that the US Constitution is law not only in the US but throughout the world, and is applicable to warfare? That is a very US centrist position. I wouldn't agree with that or try to justify enforcing that position. It seems extremely egotistical. You're twisting the issue Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution quote: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Article 1 is about the Congress and section 9 is specifically listing some things forbidden to the Congress which is therefore forbidden to all of the US government since Congress must authorize everything the government does. Therefore the US government cannot deny anyone under their control the privilege of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02