Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Admiral_K wrote:Foreign nationals are protected by international law and treaty, not the U.S. constitution. Enemy combatants have no protection under the geneva convention, nor do they have any "government" support in that regard.
... 
Thats right NO SUBSTANCE. Unless you want to count a pathetic attempt at a ad hominem attack.No substance? Only to someone who has reading comprehension problems, i.e. you. Besides, it is rather dishonest to start claiming no substance when you've cut my text short so that you can attack a snippet which is part of a greater whole on its own, stripped of context. So fuck you.
U.S. soldiers are bound by a code of conduct set for in the laws of the United States. These laws are not in the constitution however. Again, if you wish to produce evidence to the contrary, then by all means do so.Oh? Evidence, please? Because it certainly seems that e.g. crimes committed by US soldiers abroad can be pursued in US courts, which grants due process to foreigners. Concession accepted.
Granted by which amendment? The BOR makes frequent mentions of rights granted to "the people". However, since the preamble clearly states We the People of the United States clearly is in reference to citizens of the U.S.Fuck off, you arsegoblin. It shows how pathetic your arguments are when you need to resort to nitpicking rhetorical expressions, but very well: Due process is a right expressly granted in the BoR to everyone who deals with the US government in its areas of jurisdiction.
Actually, toppling the U.S. government is one of the stated goals of most terrorist groups. Not likely to happen, but regardless. Attacks on our soil are most certainly "invasion". The terrorists in Iraq are actively rebelling against the Iraqi government. I'll let the Iraqi government worry about how to treat them.That's rich, you have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. Terrorism does not fall under the category of invasion of the US, and Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended willy-nilly when the US itself is the invader as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan (though the invasion of Afghanistan was legitimate, while the Iraqi one was not). Terrorism is not a case of rebellion either in this case, because it is not aimed at toppling the US government, it is merely aimed at killing Americans, which falls under the classification of murder and/or mass murder. The terrorists in Iraq do not just relinquish all their rights, because they are resisting an illegal invader (the US), though they can be tried for crimes they have committed against Iraqis for example, or against US personnel
Appeal to authority. AGAIN, if you cannot produce references from the constitution to support your claim YOU LOSE. SCOTUS decisions are not by any means permanent, nor are their decisions always correct.When inside US jurisdiction, the constitutional protection of due process applies to them, and I have SCOTUS to back me up in addition to the other arguments I've made, while you have fuck-all. Besides, the term enemy combatant has been applied far outside the (already almost meaninglessly nebulous) context of the WW2 era SCOTUS case which is the only instance prior to the Afghanistan war where it appears
And if that happens, and the USC is packed with justices that agree with Scalea and Rehnquist, does that make me automatically right and you wrong? Well, technically I'll still be right, and you'll still be wrong.So, we can all ignore all SCOTUS and other court decisions if we don't like them? It doesn't work that way, and you still have not demonstrated one piece of evidence to support your claim that the SCOTUS has overstepped its authority. I don't see the decision overturned anytime in the near future unless upon the retirement of current justices the court is packed with spineless political shills who are willing to ignore the USC in order to pander to a political agenda.
Ask and ye shall recieve:See above. Now it's my turn, why don't you provide me with a reference from the USC, its amendments or the foundational principles and axioms behind it that restricts the ability of the SCOTUS to interpret existing laws? Extending constitutional law outside US borders in situations where the US is in control is well within the scope of interpreting existing law, and none of your handwaving and bullshit changes that fact.
If it is an argument "pulled out of my arse" then you should have no problem presenting evidence that it is wrong. If you can't, then kindly shut the fuck up.Another argument you pulled out of your arse, I see. The rights of Puerto Rico as an administrative district are distinctly separate from the rights of the people who live there when the whole fucking place is under US jurisdiction. Your handwaving does not affect my argument in the least
Ok I was wrong on that one. They do have some protections, just not the same ones POW's get.Elfdart wrote:Admiral_K wrote:Foreign nationals are protected by international law and treaty, not the U.S. constitution. Enemy combatants have no protection under the geneva convention, nor do they have any "government" support in that regard.
You are one dumb twat! "Enemy combatants" ARE covered by the Geneva Conventions, as you would know if you pulled your head out of your ass and read them.
Yes, you're answering the lesser issues and leaving the meat of the matter completely unaddressed, which means you're just nitpicking at the edges because you have no rebuttal.Admiral_K wrote:This is ridiculous. I'll answer any "points" that haven't already been addressed, but by no means am I going to reply to every one of your repeated statements.
It's not an ad hominem to say that you were being dishonest by quoting me out of context by taking a snippet that was tied to other things you have yet to address.Admiral_K wrote:Thats right NO SUBSTANCE. Unless you want to count a pathetic attempt at a ad hominem attack.
Laws which are rooted in the constitution as are ALL laws of the US. They rely on the USC to give them legitimacy and they must be in accord with the principles set out in the USC. You really are a dumb fuck if you do not understand the hierarchical nature of sources of law.Admiral_K wrote:U.S. soldiers are bound by a code of conduct set for in the laws of the United States. These laws are not in the constitution however. Again, if you wish to produce evidence to the contrary, then by all means do so.Edi wrote:Oh? Evidence, please? Because it certainly seems that e.g. crimes committed by US soldiers abroad can be pursued in US courts, which grants due process to foreigners. Concession accepted.
That's a flat out false reading. Section one defines what it takes to be a citizen of the US, and states that the rights of citizens may not be abridged. However, if the next part (due process and equal protection) were to apply only to citizens, it would say "...nor shall any State deprive any citizen of..." It manifestly does not say that, but specifically says "person", which extends to people other than citizens as well.Admiral_K wrote:Granted by which amendment? The BOR makes frequent mentions of rights granted to "the people". However, since the preamble clearly states We the People of the United States clearly is in reference to citizens of the U.S.
As my good friend Stravo pointed out, Article XIV section 1 states the following:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The terms terrorist attack and invasion are not interchangeable, even though your fantasy house of cards requires it.Admiral_K wrote:Actually, toppling the U.S. government is one of the stated goals of most terrorist groups. Not likely to happen, but regardless. Attacks on our soil are most certainly "invasion". The terrorists in Iraq are actively rebelling against the Iraqi government. I'll let the Iraqi government worry about how to treat them.
and terrorist strikes do not by any means fulfill this criterion. You lose.Dictionary.com wrote:Invasion
n 1: the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder
You do not understand, do you? Any discussion on legal issues is always to some extent an appeal to authorities of some kind, which is exactly what you're doing with your bleating about the USC. The SCOTUS is given the right of interpretation in the USC, and while their interpretation stands using it as basis of further arguments is not invalid. Unless you prefer the status of complete anarchy? Besides, the issue of constitutional protections is addressed a couple of paragraphs above in addition to all the other arguments you ignored earlier.Admiral_K wrote:Appeal to authority. AGAIN, if you cannot produce references from the constitution to support your claim YOU LOSE. SCOTUS decisions are not by any means permanent, nor are their decisions always correct.
No, you dumbfuck, you and they will still be wrong because such an overturning decision does not logically follow from the written constitution and the principles underlying it. It is logically inconsistent when compared to the primary sources of law (USC, BOR, first principles) and therefore bullshit.Admiral_K wrote:And if that happens, and the USC is packed with justices that agree with Scalea and Rehnquist, does that make me automatically right and you wrong? Well, technically I'll still be right, and you'll still be wrong.
Earlier you were bleating about the 14th amendment, and now you completely ignore it, saying that the states can do whatever the fuck they wish without SCOTUS being powerless ostensibly because of 10th amendment, but when the situation comes up when the 10th and 14th are opposed, the 14th is more powerful because it is also supported by other sources, such as the 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."[/quote]Admiral_K wrote:Ask and ye shall recieve:Edi wrote: See above. Now it's my turn, why don't you provide me with a reference from the USC, its amendments or the foundational principles and axioms behind it that restricts the ability of the SCOTUS to interpret existing laws? Extending constitutional law outside US borders in situations where the US is in control is well within the scope of interpreting existing law, and none of your handwaving and bullshit changes that fact.
Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Supreme court doesn't have ANY powers not specifically delegated it by the constitution. All such powers are reserved to the states or to the people. Its powers of "interpretation" do not grant SC Justices carte blanche to impose their will in any manner that they see fit. Anytime you have a situation such as this, where the supreme court claims "interpretation" of something that does not exist, it goes beyond simple "interpretation" and into the realm of usurping legislative power.
The evidence was presented in my previous post, in the detailed explanation of how the concepts of state, sovereignty and jurisdiction form the basis of all legal systems. You blatantly stated that you were not going to bother to reply to them, which means you are admitting defeat because you have no rebuttal.Admiral_K wrote:If it is an argument "pulled out of my arse" then you should have no problem presenting evidence that it is wrong. If you can't, then kindly shut the fuck up.Edi wrote: Another argument you pulled out of your arse, I see. The rights of Puerto Rico as an administrative district are distinctly separate from the rights of the people who live there when the whole fucking place is under US jurisdiction. Your handwaving does not affect my argument in the least
Says the man who admitted defeat by not providing a rebuttal to the core arguments against his position. Fuck off, you're the one who has been dodging and twisting through some truly spectacular contortions and distortions of logic. They avail you nothing, and you just make yourself look dumber by the moment. It's impressive really, even Axis Kast did not manage to make himself look as bad as you have this quickly, it's only taken you about a week while he needed a month or so and several months to sink to the depths he did. But don't worry, I'm accepting your admission of defeat, as you certainly seem to have run out of arguments.Admiral_K wrote:Quite frankly, I've had enough of your issue dodging. Either produce constitutional quotes that support your argument that the supreme court has the power to extend the constitution to non citizens, held outside of the United States, or else you lose. Don't bother posting if you don't have anything as I will not be responding to it.
Even without the USC the laws would still have legitmacy. And the laws cannot violate the constitution, but "rooted" in the constitution? No. The Constitution is a limitation on what the government can and cannot do.Laws which are rooted in the constitution as are ALL laws of the US. They rely on the USC to give them legitimacy and they must be in accord with the principles set out in the USC. You really are a dumb fuck if you do not understand the hierarchical nature of sources of law.
The words "citizen" "person" and "people" are used interchangeably throughout the constitution. It is clear that when it means "person" it is referring to U.S. citizens. But if you want to nitpick at the choice of words, I'll point out that it specifically says "no STATE shall deprive...". You lose either way.That's a flat out false reading. Section one defines what it takes to be a citizen of the US, and states that the rights of citizens may not be abridged. However, if the next part (due process and equal protection) were to apply only to citizens, it would say "...nor shall any State deprive any citizen of..." It manifestly does not say that, but specifically says "person", which extends to people other than citizens as well.
How convenient of you to designate the "relevent definition". Thanks, but I think I like definition 3 better:The terms terrorist attack and invasion are not interchangeable, even though your fantasy house of cards requires it.
Why don't you take a look at the definition of invasion here?
The relevant definition is
Dictionary.com wrote:
Invasion
n 1: the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder
and terrorist strikes do not by any means fulfill this criterion. You lose.
Using their interpretation as the basis of your argument when you cant produce ONE single quote from the constitution supporting that interpretation IS an appeal to authority. If this were simple "interpretation" you WOULD be able to find some consitutional evidence to support your argument. The fact that you cant is the death blow to your entire contention.You do not understand, do you? Any discussion on legal issues is always to some extent an appeal to authorities of some kind, which is exactly what you're doing with your bleating about the USC. The SCOTUS is given the right of interpretation in the USC, and while their interpretation stands using it as basis of further arguments is not invalid. Unless you prefer the status of complete anarchy? Besides, the issue of constitutional protections is addressed a couple of paragraphs above in addition to all the other arguments you ignored earlier.
Evidence? Oh I forgot, you have none.No, you dumbfuck, you and they will still be wrong because such an overturning decision does not logically follow from the written constitution and the principles underlying it. It is logically inconsistent when compared to the primary sources of law (USC, BOR, first principles) and therefore bullshit.
Again YOU are confusing the term "people" with being anyone and everyone, where as the founding fathers were specifically referring to are citizens of the United States. Hence the "We the People..."Earlier you were bleating about the 14th amendment, and now you completely ignore it, saying that the states can do whatever the fuck they wish without SCOTUS being powerless ostensibly because of 10th amendment, but when the situation comes up when the 10th and 14th are opposed, the 14th is more powerful because it is also supported by other sources, such as the 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Ask and ye shall recieve:
Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Supreme court doesn't have ANY powers not specifically delegated it by the constitution. All such powers are reserved to the states or to the people. Its powers of "interpretation" do not grant SC Justices carte blanche to impose their will in any manner that they see fit. Anytime you have a situation such as this, where the supreme court claims "interpretation" of something that does not exist, it goes beyond simple "interpretation" and into the realm of usurping legislative power.
If something a state or the federal government does in any way violates the 14th or 9th amendment (which is really rather broad, as intended), the SCOTUS automatically has jurisdiction and your argument becomes meaningless.
So your answer is essentially you have nothing to support your argument. I've answered every single one of your moronic "points", provided evidence directly from the constitution, and you can't provide ONE SINGLE SHRED of evidence to support your side, instead referring to "universal axioms" and "underlying truth" etc. The "hand waving" here is being done by you.Says the man who admitted defeat by not providing a rebuttal to the core arguments against his position. Fuck off, you're the one who has been dodging and twisting through some truly spectacular contortions and distortions of logic. They avail you nothing, and you just make yourself look dumber by the moment. It's impressive really, even Axis Kast did not manage to make himself look as bad as you have this quickly, it's only taken you about a week while he needed a month or so and several months to sink to the depths he did. But don't worry, I'm accepting your admission of defeat, as you certainly seem to have run out of arguments.Quite frankly, I've had enough of your issue dodging. Either produce constitutional quotes that support your argument that the supreme court has the power to extend the constitution to non citizens, held outside of the United States, or else you lose. Don't bother posting if you don't have anything as I will not be responding to it.
Edi
First of all, under the GCs, a person detained by the armed forces is to be considered a POW until he had been determined to be something else by a "competent tribunal". Even if the person is found to be a spy, saboteur or whatever, torture and other inhumane treatment is not allowed. Since the Senate ratified that treaty @ 50 years ago, it's the law of the land and trumps any of the "legal findings" Cornhole Gonzales, Dubya and Rumsfeld pull out of their asses. Even under cases where the GCs don't apply, there's still the Constitution, US law and the UCMJ -all of which are clear on the subject.Admiral_K wrote:Ok I was wrong on that one. They do have some protections, just not the same ones POW's get.Elfdart wrote:Admiral_K wrote:Foreign nationals are protected by international law and treaty, not the U.S. constitution. Enemy combatants have no protection under the geneva convention, nor do they have any "government" support in that regard.
You are one dumb twat! "Enemy combatants" ARE covered by the Geneva Conventions, as you would know if you pulled your head out of your ass and read them.
See I can admit when I've made a mistake.
It doesn't change the rest of my argument though.
We're not torchuring them. We're simply detaining them.Elfdart wrote:First of all, under the GCs, a person detained by the armed forces is to be considered a POW until he had been determined to be something else by a "competent tribunal". Even if the person is found to be a spy, saboteur or whatever, torture and other inhumane treatment is not allowed. Since the Senate ratified that treaty @ 50 years ago, it's the law of the land and trumps any of the "legal findings" Cornhole Gonzales, Dubya and Rumsfeld pull out of their asses. Even under cases where the GCs don't apply, there's still the Constitution, US law and the UCMJ -all of which are clear on the subject.Admiral_K wrote:Ok I was wrong on that one. They do have some protections, just not the same ones POW's get.Elfdart wrote:
You are one dumb twat! "Enemy combatants" ARE covered by the Geneva Conventions, as you would know if you pulled your head out of your ass and read them.
See I can admit when I've made a mistake.
It doesn't change the rest of my argument though.
Which bush denies to them so that they won't be treated as POWs under the Geneva conventions. Frankly, that had to be the most absurd excuse ever. Why couldn't Bush just say" I'm sorry, we caught more terrorists than we expected, so, we couldn't build the facillities to house all of them in time, thus, some of them were living in substandard conditions."CJvR wrote: Except hostile combatants, they can be held until the war is over without trial.
No if you are aprehended in the U.S., you are afforded some constituational protections. Quite frankly I don't understand why you would make such a statement based on what I wrote above. [/quote]Admiral_K wrote: So. If I'm a Dutch tourist in the US and I carry marijuana, can I claim the protection of Dutch laws and consitution?
No dice. They're under the US control, ergo, they have such rights.Guantanom Bay is not part of the U.S. and the people held there aren't U.S. citizens. The supreme court has ruled (incorrectly I might add) that since the U.S. exercises control over Guantanamo Bay, that it is considered "U.S. soil". I guess then that Afghanistan, and Iraq were also U.S. soil.
If push comes to shove, the Army can get around the supreme court by simply moving them to another location in a friendly nation that isn't under "U.S. control", but rather is under U.S. supervision.
Wrong again. Ignoring the fact that extraterrestrial laws applies in Cuba on that military base, the mere fact that the US has always considered all military bases as being part of the US appears to have escaped you. For example, the US embassy in Moscow is in Russia, but its still part of US soil by law and intent.The land is owned by Cuba and is leased by the United States. Therfore, by your definition the land is Cuban sovreign territory.
All right, Admiral Kocksucking Assgoblin, tell me this: How are the SCOTUS justices supposed to determine what is the correct course if and when two different clauses of the USC directly contradict each other? In such situations, one clause must prevail over the other, and since they are both written in the USC and both supposed to be equal, how do you solve the problem? What do you use as a basis for the decision?Admiral_K wrote:So your answer is essentially you have nothing to support your argument. I've answered every single one of your moronic "points", provided evidence directly from the constitution, and you can't provide ONE SINGLE SHRED of evidence to support your side, instead referring to "universal axioms" and "underlying truth" etc. The "hand waving" here is being done by you.
So, I say again, and for the last time. PUT UP OR SHUTUP. Either produce text from the constitution supporting your contention, or get the fuck out of dodge.
Still dumb as a post, I see. Didn't you know that sometimes judges are required to make value judgments on issues before them? It is an inherent part of their job, and your unsupported bleating about it doesn't change that. You can scream about it until you're blue in the face, and your bullshit posturing will still be irrelevant.Admiral_K wrote:As I've said numberous times, the right of interpretation does not give the SCOTUS carte blanche to decided whatever it wants. The judges in this case are not simply interpreting the constitution, they are inserting their own feelings as to what is "morally right". Thats not what their job is. Doing so under the guise of interpretation is a reprehensible abuse of power.
This, better than anything, demonstrates how totally ignorant you are. Without the USC laws passed by your Congress and Senate would not be legitimate, because the USC is the agreed-upon document where said bodies are granted legislative power. Without it, anybody could proclaim anything thgey want and call it a law and there would be no basis to refute it. And because legislative power and hence laws are derived from the USC, the laws ARE rooted in the USC, and this is the reason why they cannot contradict it without breaking your systems of government and justice.Admiral_K wrote:Even without the USC the laws would still have legitmacy. And the laws cannot violate the constitution, but "rooted" in the constitution? No. The Constitution is a limitation on what the government can and cannot do.
That's your problem, not mine, because ambiguous language allows for different interpretations and where rights are concerned, more liberal ones require less justification than constrictive ones.Admiral_K wrote:The words "citizen" "person" and "people" are used interchangeably throughout the constitution. It is clear that when it means "person" it is referring to U.S. citizens.
That's an interesting thing for someone to say who just bleated about the USC being a restriction on what the government can do. So something that is forbidden to the constituent states is not forbidden to the federal government they constitute? Weren't you supposed to be a constructionalist? Pick one side of the fucking issue and stick with it instead of being all over the place with your position.Admiral_K wrote:But if you want to nitpick at the choice of words, I'll point out that it specifically says "no STATE shall deprive...". You lose either way.
So basically foreigners have no rights at all under the USC? That's what you are saying, but we know from observed evidence and past SCOTUS cases that this is not true.Admiral_K wrote:Again YOU are confusing the term "people" with being anyone and everyone, where as the founding fathers were specifically referring to are citizens of the United States. Hence the "We the People..."
But you are NOT at war with Iraq or Afghanistan. You were, for rather brief periods of time, and you won those wars after which you had gained temporary jurisdiction over them, and that's when the USC provisions kick in. Not everyone in those countries and not even everyone arrested by US forces is a terrorist. Whether or not they are is a determination that must be made separately using due process. I'm not being dishonest, I'm reading the USC and its additions using an interpretation that can be directly gleaned from the words, just as your literalistic one can be, and that is also much more in tune with the spirit of the document than your artificially restrictive one.Admiral_K wrote:There is no way in hell the founding fathers would have intended for constitutional protections to be extended to people we are AT WAR with. Saying that they did simply because they used the term "citizen" and "person" interchangeably is blatantly dishonest.
It wasn't difficult to guess that you would pick and choose the definitions for the one that would let you continue weaseling, even when it is not the most accurate one of the given definitions for the situation. Maybe you would prefer the definitions that define the situation in medical terms, what with terrorists being a cancer on society? Sorry, but your cheap rhetorical posturing means nothing and doesn't strengthen your argument.Admiral_K wrote:How convenient of you to designate the "relevent definition". Thanks, but I think I like definition 3 better:Edi wrote:The terms terrorist attack and invasion are not interchangeable, even though your fantasy house of cards requires it.
Why don't you take a look at the definition of invasion here?
The relevant definition is
Dictionary.com wrote:
Invasion
n 1: the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder
and terrorist strikes do not by any means fulfill this criterion. You lose.
3. An intrusion or encroachment.
Any attack by foreign based powers (be they backed by a government or otherwise) would consitute an intrusion.
Keep tossing up those softballs for me to knock out of the park.
You can't just throw people into jail without proving their guilt, you little shit. What the fuck's the matter with you?Admiral_K wrote:We're not torchuring them. We're simply detaining them.
Whether or not I think we should be able to torchure them, is a different matter.
Personally, I think that any means by which you save your countrymens lives should be taken. And if it takes inflicting pain on the enemy to get him to reveal plots for attacks, or locations of terrorist leaders who create those plots, then so be it.
Don't you get it BS you can "just throw people into jail without proving their guilt" just so long as you already know that they are as Bush put it "bad men".BoredShirtless wrote:You can't just throw people into jail without proving their guilt, you little shit. What the fuck's the matter with you?Admiral_K wrote:We're not torchuring them. We're simply detaining them.
Whether or not I think we should be able to torchure them, is a different matter.
Personally, I think that any means by which you save your countrymens lives should be taken. And if it takes inflicting pain on the enemy to get him to reveal plots for attacks, or locations of terrorist leaders who create those plots, then so be it.
IIRC Bush said they would be treated as PoWs even though they didn't meet the requirements. That does not prevent them from being tried for things no normal PoW would face.PainRack wrote:Which bush denies to them so that they won't be treated as POWs under the Geneva conventions. Frankly, that had to be the most absurd excuse ever. Why couldn't Bush just say" I'm sorry, we caught more terrorists than we expected, so, we couldn't build the facillities to house all of them in time, thus, some of them were living in substandard conditions."
No. But you can put combatants, legal or illegal, in a PoW camp until the war is over. If you don't belive that you should ask the older generation how many PoWs returned before the fall of the Second or Third Reich?BoredShirtless wrote:You can't just throw people into jail without proving their guilt, you little shit. What the fuck's the matter with you?
That's not what Admiral_K thinks. He equates "accused terrorist" with "terrorist". So what do you think is his problem, brain damage? I think so.CJvR wrote:No.BoredShirtless wrote:You can't just throw people into jail without proving their guilt, you little shit. What the fuck's the matter with you?
One of the problems is they aren't just capturing POW. Mr. Habib, an Aussie, was grabbed of a bus in Pakistan, 2001, all because he was in the middle of a "snatch and grab" operation. He was held without trial, and is going to be freed in a couple of weeks; over 3 years of his life, wasted.But you can put combatants, legal or illegal, in a PoW camp until the war is over.
And on that note, let us not forget the several weeks he spent being physically tortured in Egypt with American intelligence personnel present.BoredShirtless wrote: One of the problems is they aren't just capturing POW. Mr. Habib, an Aussie, was grabbed of a bus in Pakistan, 2001, all because he was in the middle of a "snatch and grab" operation. He was held without trial, and is going to be freed in a couple of weeks; over 3 years of his life, wasted.
Yes, and they have flat out ignored the SCOTUS which said that such loopholes don't exist.SancheztheWhaler wrote:The reason people are incarcerated in Gitmo is because the Bush Administration wants them there; they've found legal loopholes to justify this, and in some cases they've flat out ignored the law and/or the Geneva Convention.
It hasn't even started getting obnoxious yet, you obviously have a thin skin. Go revisit some of the debates between Axis Kast, Vympel, Degan and myself and you'll see obnoxious.SancheztheWhaler wrote:On another note, while I don't agree with Admiral K's position on the detention of terrorists or POW's, the argument between him and Edi about the rights of foreigners in the U.S. is getting obnoxious.
SancheztheWhaler wrote:Edi, why don't you do what you've been asked to do and provide proof that the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or other documents guarantee the rights of foreign citizens in the United States. Proof requires more than your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution - it means court decisions, wording in the Constitution explicitely defining it, etc.,
If you can't, and you've repeatedly avoided doing this, then concede that Admiral K is right and knock it off.
Emphasis mine. Defines jurisdiction, and scope of power. Jurisdiction over everything and very broad powers.The United States Constitution wrote:Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
That there defines requires due process and says "no person" without any reference to or requirement of US citizenship.Amendments to the US Constitution wrote:Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The accused. Not citizen, just the accused, who can be anyone from anywhere.Amendments to the US Constitution wrote:Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
If you really want to interpret this narrowly, it could be taken to mean citizens only, but in general practice it has not been applied narrowly.Amendments to the US Constitution wrote:Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Edi wrote:There, case closed, and both you and Admiral_K can just fuck off now. Him for being a fuckwit asshole who does not address the arguments made against him that attack the whole fucking premise he builds his house of cards on and you for backing up his demands while he had not answered the arguments against. Edi
The Yosemite Bear wrote:Why this wasn't the first time the amendment's were posted, and K still insisted on snip raping them, to "Prove" his point.
Aside from that the issue that not all the guys in Guantanamo were taken as POWs, I'm wondering exactly which war are you waiting to finish before the all the untried prisoners are released?CJvR wrote:No. But you can put combatants, legal or illegal, in a PoW camp until the war is over. If you don't belive that you should ask the older generation how many PoWs returned before the fall of the Second or Third Reich?BoredShirtless wrote:You can't just throw people into jail without proving their guilt, you little shit. What the fuck's the matter with you?
