Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 7:57:15 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Just a scary thought,since no judicial review has been applied to some of these cases for years,and given the sometimes questionable method's of apprehension....Might we have created some zealots where none previously existed

(in reply to MissSCD)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 7:59:50 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL kittinSol It's not about what you think of the people that are being held: your personal opinion of them is irrelevant.


As is yours.



The difference is that you have decided these people are guilty without even demanding that proper charges are held against them, whereas I (and a few others, for that matter) suggest they are charged with a crime before they are held at the US Government's pleasure. You have a premade personal opinion, and in the light of your enthusiastic support of freedom of speech and opinion, it surprises me that you would argue in favour of something that could potentially restrict your very own personal liberty.



_____________________________



(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:01:20 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

See Merc I knew we agreed on alot of issues,I too was distressed to see that 4 SCJOUS don't seem to be able to read and or apply the Constitution in all matters before them


Ah, but mike, my perspective is that the 4 did and the 5 prevailing belief in a worldwide US jurisdiction of power. The very thing that is being used to attack President Bush, wanting to enforce US policy and US version of law, is now being supported by the very same critics.

The agenda based determination of criticism is an amazing thing to witness.
So your position is we have the right to hold them ,but not te right to apply our rule of law...interesting spin if yo ask me

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:16:30 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:

ORIGINAL kittinSol It's not about what you think of the people that are being held: your personal opinion of them is irrelevant.

As is yours.

The difference is that you have decided these people are guilty without even demanding that proper charges are held against them, whereas I (and a few others, for that matter) suggest they are charged with a crime before they are held at the US Government's pleasure. You have a premade personal opinion, and in the light of your enthusiastic support of freedom of speech and opinion, it surprises me that you would argue in favour of something that could potentially restrict your very own personal liberty.


Where is my inference regarding inhibiting free speech and opinion? To these prisoners, where did I even infer their guilt or innocence? My posts were on the application of US Law outside the US. I don't see how this could effect my personal liberty. I would not expect to apply US law when I visit a foreign land. Except now, based on you position I should. Your silence on these issues and attempt to distract indicates you lack a contrary argument. Any opinion expressed has only addressed that specific issue.

As prisoners of war they stay incarcerated until all hostilities end.

Why haven't you ever addressed the inconsistency of your position, especially when it comes to critiquing President Bush for doing the applying the same US centric position that you now support so strongly? The next time the US invades or lobs a few bombs because say, woman don't have the same rights as men, can't drive a car, or get a flogging as punishment for being raped, you'll be okay with that right? Because US standards and laws apply anywhere in the world? Maybe you'd first drop a copy of Miranda but other than that - bombs away!

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:27:24 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

See Merc I knew we agreed on alot of issues,I too was distressed to see that 4 SCJOUS don't seem to be able to read and or apply the Constitution in all matters before them


Ah, but mike, my perspective is that the 4 did and the 5 prevailing belief in a worldwide US jurisdiction of power. The very thing that is being used to attack President Bush, wanting to enforce US policy and US version of law, is now being supported by the very same critics.

The agenda based determination of criticism is an amazing thing to witness.
So your position is we have the right to hold them ,but not te right to apply our rule of law...interesting spin if yo ask me


As prisoners of war - yes. Don't see that as spin.

I'll even give you something for your side of the debate. The entire problem is caused by political correctness and the lack of pragmatism by President Bush and his administration. Call them prisoners of war and the Supreme Court never gets involved. Create a new category, 'enemy combatants' and you open the door for litigating the meaning of that reference. In the era of an activist judiciary - this outcome should have been anticipated.

However, the ridiculous balancing act in consideration of not offending anyone in the spirit of political correctness followed by this administration and both political parties has gotten us to this point.

We are at war. These people are enemy soldiers. They are being given the appropriate consideration under that circumstance. My compliments to the lawyers who removed the focus from these facts enabling them to prevail by one vote in the Supreme Court.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:28:38 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Again I am puzzled all the court decided was these men were eligible for judicial review why would you or anyone else fear that transparency.It is after all not as was pointed out in the dissent a get out of jail free card...just the right to be heard and to hear the charges against you with the evidence to support them

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:32:10 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

The entire problem is caused by political correctness and the lack of pragmatism by President Bush and his administration. Call them prisoners of war and the Supreme Court never gets involved. Create a new category, 'enemy combatants' and you open the door for litigating the meaning of that reference.


......not entirely correct Merc. The reason that the absurd term 'illegal combatent' was coined was not some political correct move. It was because prisoner of war obligated the US to treat them in specific ways, it gave them for instance a right not to be tortured.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:34:25 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		No, I do not support a "US Centric" position - but your debate tactics strike me as disingenuous. Your passion may be commendable, but it doesn't make for a rational argument: you still haven't showed how you reconcile violating the very Constitution you hold dear with your desire to 'win a war' that hasn't even been declared. You are constantly arguing in favour of trampling  the habeas corpus, one of the very foundations of this country. Thankfully, it looks like your argument is finally losing the grounds that were so unlawfully acquired.

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 6/13/2008 8:35:21 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:35:55 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Again I am puzzled all the court decided was these men were eligible for judicial review why would you or anyone else fear that transparency.It is after all not as was pointed out in the dissent a get out of jail free card...just the right to be heard and to hear the charges against you with the evidence to support them


Okay - we'll move away from the issue of applying US standard of law outside the borders.

Instead lets look at the precedent being set, prisoners of war are now entitled to due process. Ignoring for the sake of discussion what I said about the error of political correctness calling them 'enemy combatants'. Yeah - I think that is a very activist court, setting very bad precedent.

Next time the occasion arises, I'd expect the commander to turn over similarly captured men to the local judiciary. More than likely there environment would be nothing like that described by the BBC inspection of Gitmo. Nor is it likely they'd be thriving after being there so long.

Unless you say that would not be appropriate and we should take these men from the locals and bring them back to the US. In that case we've gotten back to the same point of the circuitous argument. 

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:40:28 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

still haven't showed how you reconcile violating the very Constitution you hold dear with your desire to 'win a war' that hasn't even been declared.
Maybe your problem is fundamental. President Bush declared war and Congress approved its funding. Just recently renewing that declaration by funding it for another year or so.

Declaration (quack), funding (walk), bombs and bullets flying (fly) it's war (duck).

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:47:07 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		Right... which is why it was necessary to invent a special word for 'PoWs'  .

_____________________________



(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 8:56:21 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Merc it wasn't just expediency that led Bush and Co. to declare then enemy combatants it was a transparent attempt to create a black hole where neither the protection of the Geneva Convention or the Constitution would apply.A bit of legal chicanery that has finally been set right

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 9:00:35 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc it wasn't just expediency that led Bush and Co. to declare then enemy combatants it was a transparent attempt to create a black hole where neither the protection of the Geneva Convention or the Constitution would apply.


...i suspect that Merc is quite aware of that, but his inner pixie is being mischevious again.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 9:15:39 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc it wasn't just expediency that led Bush and Co. to declare then enemy combatants it was a transparent attempt to create a black hole where neither the protection of the Geneva Convention or the Constitution would apply.


...i suspect that Merc is quite aware of that, but his inner pixie is being mischevious again.
inner pixie...I like it

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 9:49:46 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Ok Merc, I tried to be nice but so be it.

You have now repeatedly tried to conflate people being held by the US government having the privilege of Habeas Corpus to somehow be meaning a world wide enforcement of the US Constitution on uninvolved parties. The question then becomes who does have the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus under the US Constitution. Who, where, when and Constitutional references please. Note that you've already repeatedly stated that simply being in the custody of the US government is insufficient.

Sure DK, as soon as you indicate how people engaged in warfare in Afghanistan and taken prisoner qualify for Miranda and other rights under the laws of the US. You've yet to respond to any point made along those lines. Start at the top, Hussein in his rat hole. You'd have a better case. US forces occupied his country.


I'll be glad to answer any of your questions once you actually take a substantive position.

Who, when, where does the US Constitution give the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Include your Constitutional basis as well..

Once you answer so I can figure what BS you're trying to shovel I'll happily answer all your questions on Habeas Corpus.

Just as an aside Merc, I'm going to keep asking for these answers no matter how much you try and squirm. This is the only response you get until you do actually answer that question.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 10:14:33 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Who, when, where does the US Constitution give the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Include your Constitutional basis as well..

Once you answer so I can figure what BS you're trying to shovel I'll happily answer all your questions on Habeas Corpus.

Anything occuring in places under US jurisdiction where US law is the final word. These prisoners are incarcerated at Gitmo due to actions which occurred outside that jurisdiction. They are further excluded by reason that they are prisoners of war. Points I previously made regarding their label notwithstanding.  (I typed slower this time.)

quote:

 I'll be glad to answer any of your questions once you actually take a substantive position.

That waits to be seen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc it wasn't just expediency that led Bush and Co. to declare then enemy combatants it was a transparent attempt to create a black hole where neither the protection of the Geneva Convention or the Constitution would apply.


...i suspect that Merc is quite aware of that, but his inner pixie is being mischevious again.
inner pixie...I like it


Me too! However I'd never be mistaken for a delicate pixie. More accurate would be a comparison to Shakespeare's mischievous fairy 'Puck'. It seems that the 'pansy juice' (For the uninitiated that's a Shakespearian reference and has no homosexual inference intended) has been spread on many eyelids.

In the spirit of the Bard; "I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

However, I must say I'm enjoying the attempt at distraction instead of direct response to this establishment of dangerous precedent.

Philo, your reasoning for calling them 'enemy combatants' is no more, or less, valid than mine. Whether for torture expedience or political correctness, it was that bad decision to create a new label that brought us to this SCOTUS decision. I'd make an argument that if torture were the motive, these guys would have never made it out of Afghanistan and especially wouldn't be housed in such a visible facility. I am neither naive enough or apologist to believe that as we speak a great number of people are being tortured by people who are working as agents for US, if not direct US military or bureaucracy personal. Making the only reasonable conclusion that the term was created more in the spirit of correctness versus circumvention.

Again - not to use there own argument against them, but those that say President Bush ans his administration are so stupid, should not now be allowed to say that they and he were so smart that it has taken 7 years to convince 5 out of 9 Justices of this chicanery? Or were his  votes provided by members of his 'Skull & Bones' club or the infamous 'Illuminati'?

"Pity is the virtue of the law, and none but tyrants use it cruelly."

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 6/13/2008 10:22:04 AM >

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 10:23:59 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		The administration's own lawyers in  what The Court just decided was flawed legal thinking situated the prison in Guantanamo Bay for the transparent reason of creating a "black hole" outside the reach of The Justice's ...This isn't rocket science quite frankly nothing coming from this administration is rocket science,but as is the nature of such things undoing the Gordian knot took some time.We should be so lucky if some of the other questionable decisions coming out of the office of White House Council can be reversed in such a short and expedient manner legally speaking as this mess.

< Message edited by slvemike4u -- 6/13/2008 10:24:50 AM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 10:27:10 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		As someone prepping to direct a bit of ol' Shakerags i always thought of you more as Puck than Blossom.....heh......

Seems to me that the current US administration wanted, for whatever reason, to deal with prisoners in a way that was new for a so-called civilised country. Therefore a legal fiction was designed. i believe this fiction was never designed to be permanent, they knew it was unconstitutional, it was merely to buy some time.
Now, this raises a legitimate area of debate regarding the wisdom of such a move. There are those who will label themselves pragmatic who see nothing terminally wrong about it. There are those who label themselves ethical who feel that it is a completely wrong decision. The only common ground between the two is that both sides believe they have the best interests of the West at heart.
It has been argued that the 'war on terror' is less a military campaign and more a war of ideas or cultures. Seems to me that we have a mirror image of such a war happening within our own culture. From what i've read about Islam there is another mirror war happening inside that culture.
We live in interesting times.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 10:29:39 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

The Court just decided was flawed legal thinking situated the prison in Guantanamo Bay for the transparent reason of creating a "black hole" outside the reach of The Justice's ...
However the effect of the ruling was that it was NOT outside their reach. Your position points to flawed logic.

Why is it that t seems that every response isn't directly to point, but instead is a; "yeah but..."? Should I take the 'yeah' part as agreement to the point, and the 'but...' something new to consider?

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. - 6/13/2008 10:33:46 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Who, when, where does the US Constitution give the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Include your Constitutional basis as well..

Once you answer so I can figure what BS you're trying to shovel I'll happily answer all your questions on Habeas Corpus.

Anything occuring in places under US jurisdiction where US law is the final word. These prisoners are incarcerated at Gitmo

Which fits precisely with where you acknowledge the US honor the privilege of Habeas Corpus.
quote:

 due to actions which occurred outside that jurisdiction. They are further excluded by reason that they are prisoners of war. Points I previously made regarding their label notwithstanding.  (I typed slower this time.)

They are not POWs. The Bush administration has studiously avoided designating them as POWs since you can't torture POWs and you have to let the ICRC meet them to verify that they are being treated properly.

Furthermore POWs can only be taken in a declared war, we turned over all captured enemy forces to the South Koreans and South Vietnamese respectively in those conflicts because of that rule.

So by your own admission the prisoners at Gitmo qualify for Habeas Corpus in US courts. Which does seem at odds with all teh bluster you've spewed forth.

Now what questions do you want answered? Nonsensical drivel at odds with your statement above will of course be answered with my posting your own admission so save yourself the effort.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141