RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo

RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (Full Version)

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

Message

farglebargle -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 4:50:50 PM)
quote: The Constitution does not extend to foreign nationals. Please cite Article and Section OR Amendment saying that, specifically. If The People haven't delegated the authority to deny people Unalienable Rights, then that authority DOES NOT EXIST.

farglebargle -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 4:52:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Philosophy, it's not about being better than al qeada it's about killing them before they kill us. Well, when Al Qaeda comes to hurt you or your family, feel free to kill them dead.

farglebargle -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 4:54:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kiyari quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If we don't treat prisoners humanly, then what's the difference between them and us? This is a hard one. NOT sarcasm. Rules of War is an oxymoron. Rules for Prisoners aren't. Get back to us when Congress DECLARES WAR. Ever wonder WHY Bush didn't ask Congress for a Declaration of War?

Real0ne -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 4:56:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER WE aren't discussing everyone ,just theses turban wearing Muslims that are trying to kill us in the name of their religion..Plain and simple,our laws shouldn't apply to every tom,dick or harry that is a major threat to our country..What is good for the goose isn't good for the gander..bounty Just a bit oversimplified dont you think? I have been reading through a few posts on here and it is obvious few have actually done any research as to why those turbine wearing mutha fucka's are doing what they are doing. We fought england fore much less, (taxes). But good or bad we are always the good guys right?

Lordandmaster -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 5:02:36 PM)
Where do you get this shit? The Constitution distinguishes carefully between rights held by all individuals and rights held by citizens only. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this. quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The Constitution does not extend to foreign nationals. Our founders did not want it to, and our Supreme Court agrees.

kiyari -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 5:02:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: kiyari quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If we don't treat prisoners humanly, then what's the difference between them and us? This is a hard one. NOT sarcasm. Rules of War is an oxymoron. Rules for Prisoners aren't. Get back to us when Congress DECLARES WAR. Ever wonder WHY Bush didn't ask Congress for a Declaration of War? Fargle, pumpkin... honest, I grep... all I had meant was, that in the REAL WORLD, if one side 'plays by the rules', and the other side doesn't... well, it is all good I suppose, depending upon one's beliefs regarding Life, Death, Heaven et al. And No, I know why none do the asking of Congress for Declarations of War... that would invoke restrictions they do not care to be bound by. Bushies most in particular

Mercnbeth -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 5:13:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: What part of ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, and UNALIENABLE RIGHTS don't you understand? Last night while I was sleeping did the rest of the world and its population all became citizens and part of the USA abdicating their Constitutions in favor of the ours? That's the Declaration of Independence. My error - I was wrong in not pointing out I recognized it as such - and assuming you referenced a document with no legal standing in this instance but were referencing laws which are contained in the Constitution. Should have realized your misdirection was to avoid responding to the reciprocity issue and you really didn't want an answer addressing the Constitution. But then why did you bring up a Declaration having no legal standing, other than as a declaration, in the first place? quote: Please cite Article and Section OR Amendment saying that, specifically. Appreciating that the majority of our representatives want to erase them, the constitution's authority ends at the defined borders. It would be incumbent on you, since it is your point, to point to how US Constitutional law should be enforced beyond those borders to non-US citizens living there. The Constitution is the "rule of the land". "Land" defined as the US. You didn't address or respond to anything questioning why you believe it should be applied globally. Would love to hear how you believe the US Constitution applies in Iran, or Iraqi, or Canada for that matter.

farglebargle -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 5:17:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: What part of ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, and UNALIENABLE RIGHTS don't you understand? Last night while I was sleeping did the rest of the world and its population all became citizens and part of the USA abdicating their Constitutions in favor of the ours? That's the Declaration of Independence. My error - I was wrong in not pointing out I recognized it as such - and assuming you referenced a document with no legal standing in this instance but were referencing laws which are contained in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have any Laws. It specifies the Authority to CREATE LAWS is delegated, limitedly, from The People to the Federal Government. CONGRESS MAKES THE LAWS. This IS all very clearly specified IN the Constitution, so I once again state my advice to sit down and read it. quote: Should have realized your misdirection QUOTING the Declaration of Independence, the FOUNDATION of the Federal Constitution, is misdirection? FWIW, Back in school, they made us memorize that bit of the Declaration of Independence. quote: was to avoid responding to the reciprocity issue and you really didn't want an answer addressing the Constitution. But then why did you bring up a Declaration having no legal standing, other than as a declaration, in the first place? I see that you don't have the requisite background to participate meaningfully in this discussion. What is Celebrated on July 4 every year, and why seems to be a mystery. Take Care and Good Luck.

farglebargle -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 5:21:26 PM)
quote: Appreciating that the majority of our representatives want to erase them, the constitution's authority ends at the defined borders. It would be incumbent on you, since it is your point, to point to how US Constitutional law should be enforced beyond those borders to non-US citizens living there. Here's the thing. It is US CITIZENS TORTURING PEOPLE. It is US CITIZENS WHO NEED TO HAVE US LAWS ENFORCED FOR THEIR ALLEGED CRIMES. You wanna grab an Al Qaeda agent and bring him to court, and try him, knock yourself out. As long as he has access to Counsel, A Jury, and a Fair and Impartial and Quick trial on charges, I'm ALL FOR IT. But why would you give a US CITIZEN ON US TERRITORY ( Gitmo is, by virtue of the Cuba Treaty US Territory, and under International Law, so is every where the Flag flies... ( That's what Flags MEAN, US Jurisdiction is HERE. ) ) be able to commit CRIMES UNDER US LAW escapes me. And why, procedurally, there should be ANY difference in the prosecution of alleged crimes still needs to be explained to me.

cyberdude611 -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 5:42:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: The Constitution does not extend to foreign nationals. Please cite Article and Section OR Amendment saying that, specifically. If The People haven't delegated the authority to deny people Unalienable Rights, then that authority DOES NOT EXIST. Well, maybe you should tell that to the Supreme Court because they don't think so... I need to search what the exact case was but this a quote from the majority decision in 1989 written by Justice William Brennan.... "....the 4th Amendment's drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own government, and not to restrain the federal government's actions against aliens outside US territory." The Supreme Court has said that the constitution applies to American citizens living abroad if tried by a military tribunal. But it does NOT apply to foreign nationals. In other words, if you go over to Iraq and start fighting for Al-Queda and are then captured. According to the Supreme Court, you have constitutional rights as an American citizen that the military must follow. You have a right to a trial, attorney, etc... But foreign nationals do NOT have those constitutional rights. How they determine that interpretation....I don't know. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. But the Supreme Court has been quite consistant since World War II in saying that foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights.

farglebargle -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 5:47:26 PM)
quote: Well, maybe you should tell that to the Supreme Court because they don't think so... That the same Supreme Court which handed down Dredd Scott? Not exactly the best place to look for help, is it? Which proves the point that the Constitution is horribly broken. Good thing The Declaration of Independence lets us tear it up and write a more restrictive "Slave Contract" for whatever Federal Government we choose to replace the former one with. Remember the Articles of Confederation? What makes anyone ( ESPECIALLY given the situation today ) think the current Federal Constitution isn't broken worse, and needs to be replaced more? Let me close saying, I trust the NYS Dept of Ag and Markets a WHOLE LOT MORE than the Federal Food & Drug Administration.

farglebargle -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 5:49:30 PM)
I would content that the Drafting History and "Intent" are meaningless considering the EXPLICIT TEXT agreed upon and ratified would necessarily be the embodiment of that history and intent, and as such doesn't require any further interpretation. They MEANT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WROTE. Anyone contending differently has an agenda, and it isn't obedience to the Constitution.

cyberdude611 -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 6:08:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Well, maybe you should tell that to the Supreme Court because they don't think so... That the same Supreme Court which handed down Dredd Scott? Not exactly the best place to look for help, is it? But it is where our founders placed the power of interpreting it. Everyone has a different interpretation of the Constitution. If you want to take the constitution literally...then any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Because if you take the 2nd amendment literally, everyone has a right to own a gun...even the criminals. It says the people have a right to bear arms. It says nothing about criminals being an exception. Yet others view the 2nd amendment as a form of state rights to form a militia and that the people don't really have a right to own a gun. (By the way...im just using the 2nd amendment as an example and I'm not trying to start a debate on gun control....) So you see the interpretations can be varied quite a lot.

farglebargle -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 6:18:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Well, maybe you should tell that to the Supreme Court because they don't think so... That the same Supreme Court which handed down Dredd Scott? Not exactly the best place to look for help, is it? But it is where our founders placed the power of interpreting it. Everyone has a different interpretation of the Constitution. If you want to take the constitution literally...then any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Because if you take the 2nd amendment literally, everyone has a right to own a gun...even the criminals. It says the people have a right to bear arms. It says nothing about criminals being an exception. Yeah, that's because it's What It Says In Simple, Plain English. quote: Yet others view the 2nd amendment as a form of state rights to form a militia and that the people don't really have a right to own a gun. They are illiterate. quote: (By the way...im just using the 2nd amendment as an example and I'm not trying to start a debate on gun control....) So you see the interpretations can be varied quite a lot. Yeah, there's the RIGHT ONE, based on the clear text, and there's the one which some people would LIKE you to believe, because they have their own agenda. See, the beauty of it, and what people forget, is how the 9th and 10th Amendment make the muteness of the Constitution on some topics totally irrelevant. So what if the Constitution doesn't say X, Y, and Z. THE STATE can still do whatever THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION permits it, and as aways, The People ARE the Sovereign from whom ALL authority is delegated, and can just do away with the Constitution of either State or Federation, and start anew. ( And THAT is what we celebrate every Fourth of July, Campers... )

Mercnbeth -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 6:35:37 PM)
quote: I see that you don't have the requisite background to participate meaningfully in this discussion. What is Celebrated on July 4 every year, and why seems to be a mystery. Take Care and Good Luck. Wow fargle resorting to attempts of denigration? Are your arguments not making sense even to yourself? Are we celebration the Constitution that day? What would have been the legal importance of the Declaration should the war associated with it have been lost? You just need to blur the discussion to avoid replying. Still missing an answer to a direct question. Under what rationality does US Constitutional Law apply outside US borders, even for US citizens? What German law specific to Germany to we apply to German citizens while they visit? Or is just US Law to fit the criteria of your argument that you choose to apply? I appreciate your desire to enforce and apply your US prejudice upon the rest of the world but don't you think they should have that option? I'm learning that I have more respect for our adversaries than you. I don't apply superiority to our philosophy over theirs and therefor I'd don't try applying our standards to them. Saying, "we should be better than them" implies that they are not as good as us. Seeing that I don't claim that we are superior, I'm am not lowing myself by using my adversaries tactics and methods. I'm treating them as equals, whose Laws and Constitution has the same weight as mine.

farglebargle -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/22/2007 6:40:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I see that you don't have the requisite background to participate meaningfully in this discussion. What is Celebrated on July 4 every year, and why seems to be a mystery. Take Care and Good Luck. Wow fargle resorting to attempts of denigration? Are your arguments not making sense even to yourself? Are we celebration the Constitution that day? What would have been the legal importance of the Declaration should the war associated with it have been lost? You just need to blur the discussion to avoid replying. Still missing an answer to a direct question. Under what rationality does US Constitutional Law apply outside US borders, The Constitution applies TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Therefore, ANYWHERE the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS, IS BOUND BY THE LIMITS IMPOSED IN THE CONSTITUTION. I'm not saying the GERMAN GOVERNMENT must comply with the US Constitution. The US GOVERNMENT MUST. It doesn't matter WHO or WHERE the US GOVERNMENT is holding someone. The very fact that it's the US GOVERNMENT means it's bound by the Constitutional Limits on Federal Authority. Where did you pick up the erroneous belief that the Constitution was anything but the explicit specifier of US GOVERNMENT authority? And why ever would you let the US GOVERNMENT exceed that delegated authority?

Zensee -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/23/2007 2:42:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Are your arguments not making sense even to yourself? Fargles arguments are cogent and consistent whereas the morally and ethically ambiguous posters here are dancing in the shadows. You can't be the global champion of "freedom and democracy" AND snatch people at will from anywhere on the globe, hold them without trial or even charges, for as long as it pleases you, torture them, deny them contact with their loved ones... It does not compute. If you have reason enough to imprison them you must have proof enough to convince a judge. Right? Or is being a "turban wearing Muslim" a federal offense now? Perhaps making simple turban wearing a shoot on sight offense would speed the export of freedom and democracy to the savage lands. You can't uphold the law if you are breaking it. Bounty - it doesn't matter what Fargle or any of us would do in your hypothetical situation where your kid is wired with explosives. This isn't about the personal acts of a stressed human being, it's about the conduct of the most powerful country on earth. Are terrorists evil, cowardly shitheels? Sure. Do we have to act like them to fight them? No. That's why we use the rule of law rather than lunch-mob mentality. Merc - if it's a matter of being pragmatic... Since 9/11 about 1.8 million Americans have died from tobacco consumption. That's about two-hundred-and-fifty times as many as died in the towers, combined with subsequent civilian and military deaths. So , pragmatically the far more dangerous enemy is an American, wears a suit and pulls down six figures or better every year. Z.

Real0ne -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/23/2007 11:57:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Bounty - it doesn't matter what Fargle or any of us would do in your hypothetical situation where your kid is wired with explosives. This isn't about the personal acts of a stressed human being, it's about the conduct of the most powerful country on earth. Are terrorists evil, cowardly shitheels? Sure. Do we have to act like them to fight them? No. That's why we use the rule of law rather than lunch-mob mentality. Z. That and another real issue that goes over looked is that these people are using the only weapons of WAR they have available to them... They do not have smart bombs and stealth fighters, they only have semtek and nails. If for some reason the people of the us no longer had the armed forces what anyone here do against a foe like china? We would do the very same thing, semtek and nails.

Real0ne -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/23/2007 12:00:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I see that you don't have the requisite background to participate meaningfully in this discussion. What is Celebrated on July 4 every year, and why seems to be a mystery. Take Care and Good Luck. Wow fargle resorting to attempts of denigration? Are your arguments not making sense even to yourself? Are we celebration the Constitution that day? What would have been the legal importance of the Declaration should the war associated with it have been lost? You just need to blur the discussion to avoid replying. Still missing an answer to a direct question. Under what rationality does US Constitutional Law apply outside US borders, The Constitution applies TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Therefore, ANYWHERE the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS, IS BOUND BY THE LIMITS IMPOSED IN THE CONSTITUTION. I'm not saying the GERMAN GOVERNMENT must comply with the US Constitution. The US GOVERNMENT MUST. It doesn't matter WHO or WHERE the US GOVERNMENT is holding someone. The very fact that it's the US GOVERNMENT means it's bound by the Constitutional Limits on Federal Authority. Where did you pick up the erroneous belief that the Constitution was anything but the explicit specifier of US GOVERNMENT authority? And why ever would you let the US GOVERNMENT exceed that delegated authority? i am not going to look it up but i think it states us territories and to what extent territories covers i do not know. But i am sure if rental property was not considered a us controlled terrirtory that would be exactly how these assholes would get around our laws.

Real0ne -> RE: White House near decision to close Gitmo (6/23/2007 12:02:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Well, maybe you should tell that to the Supreme Court because they don't think so... That the same Supreme Court which handed down Dredd Scott? Not exactly the best place to look for help, is it? But it is where our founders placed the power of interpreting it. Everyone has a different interpretation of the Constitution. If you want to take the constitution literally...then any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Because if you take the 2nd amendment literally, everyone has a right to own a gun...even the criminals. It says the people have a right to bear arms. It says nothing about criminals being an exception. Yet others view the 2nd amendment as a form of state rights to form a militia and that the people don't really have a right to own a gun. (By the way...im just using the 2nd amendment as an example and I'm not trying to start a debate on gun control....) So you see the interpretations can be varied quite a lot. Well in the final analysis the american people can over rule the supreme court. However congress and supreme court were at odds over who would handlew these issues and the supremne court decided that they woudl and congress acquiesed.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875