PDA

View Full Version : Constitutional lag



Italian Jew
06-12-2008, 06:39 PM
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/high-court-backs-guantanamo-detainees/20080612105609990001

Now they get constitutional rights, which would help if they are being held prisoner. If they are guilty, they will be imprisoned legally. If not, the innocent finally get to leave, YAY!:w00t:

I know some people think that we should not be so nice to these alleged terrorists because they don't treat us the same way, but aren't we trying to prove we are better than them?

Red
06-12-2008, 07:37 PM
Retarded

We already proved that we're better than them by not cutting their heads off.

Can the innocent non-military personnel missing their heads go free?

This is pretty rich coming from a Jew.

Them:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_f_UMP3iQDAI/RwJku2kcY_I/AAAAAAAAAfc/1f1VYZERLgs/s400/Nick%2520Berg%2520Beheading%2520Pic%25209%2520-%2520WARNING%2520GRAPHIC!!.jpg



US:
http://attendingtheworld.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/guantanamo-dog.jpg



I'll take the dog.

Italian Jew
06-12-2008, 08:21 PM
Well, I think it would be better to sick the dog on them IF they are guilty. Not everyone in Guantanamo is a terrorist nor related to any terrorist activity. Who ever decides to imprison people without being sentenced or convicted of anything? I am sure there is a huge list somewhere...maybe if I look under dictators and tyrants...hmmm.....

Red
06-12-2008, 08:29 PM
Dictators and Tyrants kill and imprison their OWN citizens without trial.

These people aren't our citizens nor are they in holding for simple political dissent. If you're trying to equate Bush with Hitler or Fidel you're entering a whole new unexplored realm of stupidity beyond what you've already uncovered.

LegalSmash
06-12-2008, 08:52 PM
ok, from an overview on the case off westlaw, I'll say only this: Federal Judges STILL get to decide ultimately what to do, meaning that the Supreme Court basically clarified what was always established.

I am going to read the 70 some odd page decision and give my three cents, but it will take a while, as I am currently bar prepping.

Italian Jew
06-12-2008, 11:55 PM
Dictators and Tyrants kill and imprison their OWN citizens without trial.

These people aren't our citizens nor are they in holding for simple political dissent. If you're trying to equate Bush with Hitler or Fidel you're entering a whole new unexplored realm of stupidity beyond what you've already uncovered.

I am sorry I am tarnishing the image of your precious soul mate. If it makes you feel better, I will stop. I am not saying he is up to par with what they have done, but he is getting there. Now if he only had another term he could do some real damage! :w00t:

Anyways, I think the ruling would only affect those held without charges the most. If you are going to hold somebody that you think is your enemy, you have to tell them what they are charged (at least that is the law in the US) if they are not in open combat with you. Some are not POW's from the war on terror, so they have civilian rights in this situation if they have not done anything except create suspicion. Get the real terrorists in there and take out the arab guy trying to get flying lessons at the wrong time in history.

phatman76
06-13-2008, 12:46 AM
Habeas Corpus is a right of citizens in a time of peace, not of enemy combatants in a time of war. You don't have to sink to their level to win, but you do have to use any means necessary. I would expect my government, which at any time could require me to fight and die for my country, to use the most extreme measures and highest degree of prejudice against the enemy whenever necessary, without hesitation. Anything less would constitute a failure on the part of government to protect its people by any means necessary, well established as the most fundamental and critical reason for government itself.

Italian Jew
06-13-2008, 01:47 AM
Well, the court case affirms their right to habeus corpus by a federal court. This applies to all detainees whether they are guilty of anything or not.

Furthermore, acts of torture are prevented by the Geneva Conventions. The two trains of thought are as follows:

The detainee is either a POW, a civilian, or medical personnel and there is no in-between status for any of those distinctions, so the "unlawful" combatants would be considered POWs or civilians.

The second interpretation is that if a civilian behaves in a hostile manner, they become "unlawful" and should be prosecuted and treated according to the law of the detaining country. The Bill of Rights (8th Amendment I think) states that cruel or unusual punishments should not be inflicted, therefore torture should not be allowed. Also, the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to all people whether they be citizens or foreigners in the US and its territories.

So we either broke the rules of the Geneva Conventions or we violated the Bill of Rights. I understand that you may want to get back at the enemy as I do, but from what I take from the laws, we should be the better people. I do not think anything short of an amendment can change the constitution, and I do not see the amendment that expresses when torture can be used. The most extreme measures should be taken to those who are guilty, but in accordance to our own laws which we believe in. I do not think using prejudice or extreme measure above the law would make America safer nor would following the law and not using extreme prejudice constitute as a failure of safety. If they are already detained, how much safer can you make people? If you want to execute them, by all means, if they are found guilty of the crime, then they shall be put to death, but it has to follow our laws. If the government sets up the example that they can bend the law when they need to, how are the people going to interpret that?

LegalSmash
06-13-2008, 08:37 AM
Well, the court case affirms their right to habeus corpus by a federal court. This applies to all detainees whether they are guilty of anything or not.

Furthermore, acts of torture are prevented by the Geneva Conventions. The two trains of thought are as follows:

The detainee is either a POW, a civilian, or medical personnel and there is no in-between status for any of those distinctions, so the "unlawful" combatants would be considered POWs or civilians.

The second interpretation is that if a civilian behaves in a hostile manner, they become "unlawful" and should be prosecuted and treated according to the law of the detaining country. The Bill of Rights (8th Amendment I think) states that cruel or unusual punishments should not be inflicted, therefore torture should not be allowed. Also, the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to all people whether they be citizens or foreigners in the US and its territories.

So we either broke the rules of the Geneva Conventions or we violated the Bill of Rights. I understand that you may want to get back at the enemy as I do, but from what I take from the laws, we should be the better people. I do not think anything short of an amendment can change the constitution, and I do not see the amendment that expresses when torture can be used. The most extreme measures should be taken to those who are guilty, but in accordance to our own laws which we believe in. I do not think using prejudice or extreme measure above the law would make America safer nor would following the law and not using extreme prejudice constitute as a failure of safety. If they are already detained, how much safer can you make people? If you want to execute them, by all means, if they are found guilty of the crime, then they shall be put to death, but it has to follow our laws. If the government sets up the example that they can bend the law when they need to, how are the people going to interpret that?

1. Geneva convention is an international agreement, which under Art. II of the Constitution, the President of the US can exit unilaterally.
2. Bill of Rights applies to US Citizens and Resident Aliens, Residents, not foreign citizens captured under color of war, different rules apply there.
3. The case doesnt "affirm their right to habeus" it basically says they have the right to be considered by a federal judge in order to receive a hearing regarding charges... meaning the federal judges are still the gate keepers of the action moving forward at all.
4. The individuals taken to gitmo were NOT "standby innocent arabs trying to get flying lessons", but rather people who made some sort of affirmative action, comment, boast, involvement, etc. with AQ or other groups, this doesnt make them "innocent" it makes them fucktards that placed themselves in the purview of the US government. Example here is that fucktard american (I shame to call him that) Taliban John Walker Lindh. He carried weapons against soldiers of the US with intent to harm, THAT is treason... AND he has a full bill of rights because he was still a US Citizen at the time of the situation. The 8th applies to him, which is why he didnt receive a summary execution right then and there.
5. Foreign Citizens have ALWAYS had the right to seek redress in US Federal Courts for wrongs done to them by other private parties, HOWEVER the 10th Amendment and 11th amendments SHIELD the state and fed government from private suit for damages and equitable relief where they may be deprived of some property, real or other, through the suit. UNLESS THEY CONSENT TO THE SUIT.

In English: Unless the Congress makes the "terrorist sandmonkey can sue us because we locked them up and fed them, cared for them better than they had it in the torabora cave complex" law, there is very little the person can do.

Lastly, for that to even apply, the person HAS TO BE A CITIZEN OF A COUNTRY SOMEWHERE. Being an underground terrorist with no actual parent country leaves you woefully short of standing to sue regarding this.

I'm still looking it over, but these are preliminary thoughts on the matter.

Captain Colon
06-13-2008, 11:27 AM
Well, the court case affirms their right to habeus corpus by a federal court. This applies to all detainees whether they are guilty of anything or not.
You don't seem to realize that most of these people (possibly all of them, since legal citizens or permanent residents have been able to challenge their imprisonment for a while now) are not citizens and as such aren't entitled to the same protections. Legal explained it well in much more detail.

zero
06-13-2008, 11:36 AM
Now they get constitutional rights, which would help if they are being held prisoner.

Not like that says much. I just wrote a check for $200 for a permit so I can exercise my 2nd ammendment "right".

Itch
06-13-2008, 11:40 AM
Not like that says much. I just wrote a check for $200 for a permit so I can exercise my 2nd ammendment "right".

Where do you live.. My renewal was only $10
I've had my permit for 10 years now, and this is the second time I had to renew it.

Go UTAH!

zero
06-13-2008, 11:45 AM
Where do you live.. My renewal was only $10
I've had my permit for 10 years now, and this is the second time I had to renew it.

Go UTAH!

Nice. I have to take a class. I also had to pay the CBI and the state so that they could do a background check. It all added up to $200. $80 for the class, $40 to the sheriff's office, $40 to the CBI, etc, etc. Actually, I'm looking forward to taking the class (which is in two weeks). Should be interesting.

Itch
06-13-2008, 11:49 AM
I did have to take a class initially (It was fun) and we were required to prove (somewhat) proficiency on a firing range. However I spent under $100 total for the class, fingerprints, passport photos & application fee.

Well worth it though.

LegalSmash
06-13-2008, 05:26 PM
Humorously, the states have the right to encumber your rights with taxes on them.... AND the 2nd is only guaranteed in states that incorporate it into their own state constitutions OR federal districts.


FL has a 3 day mandatory period set into the constitution and some sort of fees, other states have other similar requirements, they do it under the state police power.

Captain Colon
06-16-2008, 01:08 PM
Nice. I have to take a class. I also had to pay the CBI and the state so that they could do a background check. It all added up to $200. $80 for the class, $40 to the sheriff's office, $40 to the CBI, etc, etc. Actually, I'm looking forward to taking the class (which is in two weeks). Should be interesting.
Boring...I thought you were talking about an NFA tax stamp :sad:


I'm a resident of a "may-issue" state even though I spend most of the year in a shall-issue state :sad::sad::sad::sad::sad: