RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights.

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

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

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 12:00:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The U.S. has absolute control of the property,surely you are not suggesting this comes with Mr. Castro's blessing Slvemike, why would it "need" "Castro's blessing?" I don't understand why some people seem to think that the U.S. Constitution extends beyond our borders. Go down to Mexico and get arrested and tell them you want your "rights! lol! "But, but, the U.S. Supreme Court said that....." "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!" "Ha! Ha! Ha!" You're making the same misstake that a lot of "civilised" people make. You "assume" that everyone else in the world is "civilised" like you are. They're not.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 12:05:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually there is no provision for rent and the lease is for as long as the US desires: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba002.htm Yale as a reference? Surprised you used it. Didn't President Bush go there? From your source: quote: Between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba for the lease (subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two Governments) to the United States of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations. I suggest when quoting a source you should read it. Where is the one sided provision you claim? Must be with those forthcoming responses? On the other hand... quote: U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay is the oldest U.S. base overseas and the only one in a Communist country. Located on the southeast corner of Cuba, in the Oriente Province, the base is about 400 air miles from Miami, Florida. The terrain and climate of Guantanamo Bay make it a haven for iguanas and banana rats. In December 1903, the United States leased the 45 square miles of land and water for use as a coaling station. A treaty reaffirmed the lease in 1934 granting Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, payment of $2,000 in gold per year, equating to $4,085 today, and a requirement that both the U.S. and Cuba must mutually consent to terminate the lease. Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay.htm DK - Continue reading, don't stop at a comma, or even a period, in an article that gives support to your claim. You'll end up looking foolish if you don't finish in times such as this. Yeah but... quote: The U.S. has absolute control of the property,surely you are not suggesting this comes with Mr. Castro's blessing Yeah, that is EXACTLY what I said. To see it you have to hold my post up to the mirror, then and it reads that exactly.

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 12:14:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Merc we hold them in a location we control in perpetuity ergo they qualify that simple,and yes moving them to some other location under the control and jurisdiction of U.S. forces and they still qualify...You don't have to like it ...but after the ruling it is so Slvemike, if you commited a crime on GTMO you'd be under military law. U.S. Civilian Courts have no jurisdiction in GTMO.

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 12:19:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 We were taught in the 1960's in high school that the judicial branch was there to "keep in check" the executive and legislative branches of government, not to do their jobs for them or to dictate to The People. It's a tribute to your memory that you remember this; and this is exactly why the Supreme Court made this judgement. The legislative powers keeping the executive in check and trying to curtail abuse of power by the latter. Kittin, nice try. Again, the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction outside of the U.S.

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 12:22:44 PM)
Nice attempt at derail, but this thread wasn't about whether the United States owned Guantanamo, leased it or occupied it illegally, notwithstanding the strident attempts at changing the subject.

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 12:28:15 PM)
Merc "mutual consent" means exactly that Castro can not unilaterally terminate the lease...I don't see us consenting anytime soon ergo if you like virtual perpetuity...Popeye in that case the UCMJ would be in effect,but as i am not in uniform and under the jurisdiction of he UCMJ Your damm right I would be subject to civilian authority...or would You strip me of my birthright as an American.....really simple and I don't know why this is so difficult they are either fish or fowl you cant say their neither and still be a country of laws

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 12:54:51 PM)
quote: I don't know why this is so difficult they are either fish or fowl you cant say their neither and still be a country of laws Mike, and that is the crux of it, isn't it? Call them POW's, or call them criminals, and no need for this discussion. Add the creation of the label 'enemy combatants' to the litany of errors made by this dysfunctional administration, and the facilitating Congress. Say what you will but we would not be there today but for their votes, under the majority leadership of both parties. You and others are happy that SCOTUS has granted these people more rights than any US citizen has visiting any country in the world. I'm not. Case closed, your side won - no need for further discussion. I believe in my heart the ruling was unnecessary and it makes the US more vulnerable to future attack. I also believe more 'enemy combatants' or whatever you want to call them, will be killed, as a result. But - so what? The same ignorant, or brilliant, I guess now depending on the need in debate, administration will be responding to the ruling. You interpret this as a decision for liberty and in line with the ideals that the US was founded. You consider it a victory that these, as referenced in the OP, "Terrorism suspects" have rights. Specific to that point, I stand by my original thoughts: I think its fantastic that these persecuted individuals will be released. I trust they won't be put through the any restrictive ongoing surveillance, limited travel, restricted residency, and local registration process. That type of thing should be limited, as it is, to those labeled sex offenders after being caught pissing in public. These young men were driven by their convictions to a cause, egged on my generations of US exploitation of their homelands. They are fine upstanding representatives of their culture and religion should not have to live under such scrutiny. In fact, next time anyone needs to piss in public, make it a political statement. Do it on the embers of the World Trade center. Yeah, the pit that once used to be my office may have gone cold, but there are still some pictures around. Keep one in your pocket with a lighter just in case you need to go.

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:00:51 PM)
I'm sorry if you were personally affected by 9/11 but this is the exact kind of rhetoric that allowed for all this abuse of the Constitution in the first place. I remember the days following the attacks on the WTC... any disagreement with US foreign policy was met with accusations of 'unpatriotism' and 'treason'. Images of Bush cocking it off for the cameras, perfect photo opportunities for him, and they fell for it! Yet, it's at times like these that governments and their people need to keep cool heads so as to not let themselves be intimidated by the bastards that attacked them in the first place. So far, the terrorists have won.

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:03:53 PM)
Merc who says there being released all The Court did was say they have the right to have the judicial branch review the evidence....Believe me NO ONE IS OPENING THE GATE...who do you think has the burden of proof in these cases Achmed whochamacalit or the full power of the Executive which still has a vested interest of not looking like complete fools fo holding them....I doubt none but the most egregious errors will be redressed....rest easy these guys won't be going anywhere for a good long time

DomKen -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:07:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually there is no provision for rent and the lease is for as long as the US desires: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba002.htm Yale as a reference? Surprised you used it. Didn't President Bush go there? From your source: quote: Between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba for the lease (subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two Governments) to the United States of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations. I suggest when quoting a source you should read it. Where is the one sided provision you claim? Must be with those forthcoming responses? I posted the text of the treaty. I don't care about the source beyond finding another to verify the correctness of the text. Maybe if you weren't devolving into some sort of Hannity imitator you would have read the first line of Article 1 of the treaty: quote: The Republic of Cuba hereby leases to the United States, for the time required No mention in the entire document that rent would be paid although a token payment was later negotiated and a clear statement that the US decides the length of the lease. As to Castro consenting that's pretty funny. He's complained to the UN and tried repeatedly to void the treaty but the US refuses to leave. BTW demanding that SCOTUS ignore the US Constitution just because GWB wants them to is patently absurd. Nobody involved is disrespecting those who died on 9/11. Personally upholding law in spite of political pressure is in the best traditions of this nation and is precisely the sort of thing Al Qaeda wanted to destroy.

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Nice attempt at derail, but this thread wasn't about whether the United States owned Guantanamo, leased it or occupied it illegally, notwithstanding the strident attempts at changing the subject. Kittin, as you said earlier, we need to enforce "All Laws" don't we? (When is your next "immigration" thread comming up?)[:D]

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Nice attempt at derail, but this thread wasn't about whether the United States owned Guantanamo, leased it or occupied it illegally, notwithstanding the strident attempts at changing the subject. Kittin, as you said earlier, we need to enforce "All Laws" don't we? YOUR POINT???

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:14:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Nice attempt at derail, but this thread wasn't about whether the United States owned Guantanamo, leased it or occupied it illegally, notwithstanding the strident attempts at changing the subject. Kittin, as you said earlier, we need to enforce "All Laws" don't we? YOUR POINT??? Slvemike, see "edit" above.

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:22:22 PM)
[sm=offtopic.gif][sm=threadhijack.gif][sm=doh.gif]

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:26:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Unfortunately yes, what goes on in the United States has repercussions throughout the world - but that is not why[:D] 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?[:D] 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. Slvemike, Kittin, how's about a little Quid Pro Quo? If you guys will agree to strictly enforce our immigration laws I'll agree to give these GTMo vermin "rights" to a trial. Hell, I'll even agree to buy 'em Cadillacs! Deal? I must agree with Kittin, we have to enforce ALL of our laws!

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:30:21 PM)
I grow weary [sm=banghead.gif]

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:33:01 PM)
Dk, In summary, if you were answering the Gitmo lease prior to 1934 you would be correct. I doubt it would come from you, especially considering how much of a error it is in debating, but let me point out that without question - TODAY, 2008 you were wrong. While on precedent, President Carter negotiated a similar lease termination agreement with Panama, the home of that great friend of the US, Col. Manual Noriega, and bi-annual 'coup' attempts. The idea that the current least is going to be unilaterally continued is foolish; especially considering either of the potential men we'll have to call President in 2009. quote: I'm sorry if you were personally affected by 9/11 but this is the exact kind of rhetoric that allowed for all this abuse of the Constitution in the first place. I remember the days following the attacks on the WTC... any disagreement with US foreign policy was met with accusations of 'unpatriotism' and 'treason'. Images of Bush cocking it off for the cameras, perfect photo opportunities for him, and they fell for it! Yet, it's at times like these that governments and their people need to keep cool heads so as to not let themselves be intimidated by the bastards that attacked them in the first place. So far, the terrorists have won. Bullcrap and hollow on all points kS. This has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism or knee jerk reaction to 9/11. The ruling creates law, and doesn't serve to enforce it or clarify it. My sentiments may be drawn from personal experience, but my problem with it is only concerning an activist court who made a political ruling not a legal one. However the problem with that is that its now law. A law creating direct vulnerably and indirectly affecting future actions. This time you rationalize that it is 'good'. Next time, when some future President decides to use the application of US law - Habeas Corpus or other - to justify an action, attack, or policy taking place on foreign soil; remember this ruling will be what his/her legal counsel bases his authorization to do so. SCOTUS created a generation worth of rationalization for future Administrations. Our laws are based upon precedent. This ruling set a very dangerous one.

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:34:03 PM)
[sm=argue.gif][sm=blasted.gif][sm=boohoo.gif] Seriously makes one want to [sm=buddies.gif] .

philosophy -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:34:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth However I think the UK would have something to say if when they stepped onto the base in their country all of a sudden US law was law. .....actually it's already happened. Back in the 70's there was a similar problem/debate/storm-in-a-teacup over the siting of nuclear cruise missiles based in US bases on UK soil. The issue was never really settled, in one of those classic diplomatic fudges that UK diplomats are famous for (the ones where no-one gets an outright victory but no-one actually loses either...sort of like playing for a stalemate in chess). However, i guarantee that should the US try to place a Gitmo type facility on UK soil that the base would be besieged by protestors, that multiple legal challenges would be lodged in the High Court, and that it wouldn't be there very long. UK politicians almost lost their jobs over merely transporting renditionees through UK airspace. The UK has many flaws, but a perceived injustice of Gitmo proportions would get the majority very, very annoyed.

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:35:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I grow weary [sm=banghead.gif] Slvemike, no,[:D] KITTIN's right![:D] We have to enforce ALL laws! After all "The Rule of Law" is what makes America a great country, isn't it? Am I wrong there???

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.785156E-02