SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by flaja

I don't care one bit whether or not the Moslems love America as long they fear America to the point that they do not attack America or its allies.

BTW: Following the American Revolutionary War this country's first military encounter (apart from fighting Indians and a quasi-war with revolutionary France) was with the pirates of the Barbary Coast, i.e., Moslems.

The radical Muslims are beyond fearing anybody. They are in the 'I don't give a fuck' mode.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by flaja

Our enemy is not terrorists, but rather Islam, which is inherently hostile to American ideals. Killing a terrorist will simply mean another Moslem is waiting to take his place.

Placing the blame on all members of a particular religion didn't work out so well for the Nazis.

Yes. I know about Godwin. It's still a valid analogy.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by dar512

Placing the blame on all members of a particular religion didn't work out so well for the Nazis.

Yes. I know about Godwin. It's still a valid analogy.

The Nazis classified Jews according to their ethnicity, not their religion. If you had so much as a single grandparent that was Jewish you were considered to be Jewish under German law regardless of what religion you practiced.

The Arabs are the only people that could possibly have an ethnic beef against the Jews (and this is assuming that the Arabs are really descended from Abraham through Ishmael). Islam is not limited to Arabs, but Moslems in general the world over tend to hate the Jews (and by extension the U.S.). The Arabs, “Palestinians”, Syrians, Iranians etcetera are anti-Semitic and anti-American not because they are Arabic, “Palestinian”, Syrian or Iranian, but because they are Islamic.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by flaja

The Nazis classified Jews according to their ethnicity, not their religion. If you had so much as a single grandparent that was Jewish you were considered to be Jewish under German law regardless of what religion you practiced.

The Arabs are the only people that could possibly have an ethnic beef against the Jews (and this is assuming that the Arabs are really descended from Abraham through Ishmael). Islam is not limited to Arabs, but Moslems in general the world over tend to hate the Jews (and by extension the U.S.). The Arabs, “Palestinians”, Syrians, Iranians etcetera are anti-Semitic and anti-American not because they are Arabic, “Palestinian”, Syrian or Iranian, but because they are Islamic.

Ok. Hmmm. I'm starting to think you are just flinging stuff on the wall to see what will stick.

All of the above has nothing to do with categorizing people strictly based on their religion -- which you did in your original post, nor with my analogy, which was mostly to say "it's bad to do that".

[Aliantha]

I think tw is gwb in disguise. I think it's all a plot to see what he can get away with among a group of 'readers'.

[spudcon]

Geneva Convention applies to soldiers representing foreign countries and fighting for them. Which country is Osama bin Laden and company representing? What climate conditions represent the home country of an international band of murderers? Geneva doesn't apply to anarchists who murder and torture their own countrymen as well as everyone else.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Geneva Convention applies to soldiers representing foreign countries and fighting for them. Which country is Osama bin Laden and company representing? What climate conditions represent the home country of an international band of murderers? Geneva doesn't apply to anarchists who murder and torture their own countrymen as well as everyone else.

It isn't the POW's home country's climate that must be duplicated, but rather the climate of the place where the POW was captured. Germany is neither subtropical or arid, but some places in the Mediterranean are so the U.S. had POW camps for Germans in subtropical Florida and the arid West.

Chances are the closest classification that someone like Bin Laden could have under the U.S. Constitution is pirate. Congress can make laws to punish piracy as well as laws to both define and punish offences against international law. It can also make laws regulating captures made on land and water. Some of Congress’ power has been delegated to the Geneva Convention by treaty. If our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are considered acts of war under international treaties that the U.S. has signed, then the people we capture in Afghanistan and Iraq are POWs as far as the international community is concerned. But if these people don’t have POW status, then they are under the regulation of Congress because of Congress’ enumerated powers. This status would put them under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts and this would give them U.S. legal due process rights.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Geneva Convention applies to soldiers representing foreign countries and fighting for them. Which country is Osama bin Laden and company representing? What climate conditions represent the home country of an international band of murderers? Geneva doesn't apply to anarchists who murder and torture their own countrymen as well as everyone else.

How quick we are to deny rights to others.

I would rather the US take the moral high ground instead of gerrymandering around who deserves rights and who doesn't.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by dar512

How quick we are to deny rights to others.

I would rather the US take the moral high ground instead of gerrymandering around who deserves rights and who doesn't.

Why does a group who purposely murder innocent women and children deserve the same rights as a soldier engaged in battle, defending his country, and following orders from his legitimate government? They especially do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens. There were even wimps here in this country who didn't want us shipping them out to other Moslem countries, for fear their brethren would execute the poor dears.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Why does a group who purposely murder innocent women and children deserve the same rights as a soldier engaged in battle, defending his country, and following orders from his legitimate government?

Because that's one of the principles that America was founded on. You don't know that any given person incarcerated in Guantanamo is guilty of murdering anyone unless and until they have a chance to a fair trial.

It often seems to me that those who are loudest in wanting to protect our country are the quickest to forget what made it worth protecting in the first place.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by spudcon

There were even wimps here in this country who didn't want us shipping them out to other Moslem countries, for fear their brethren would execute the poor dears.

Actually, the wimps here would be the people who would be afraid to try them openly in a court of law. Either you have evidence against them or you don't.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Why does a group who purposely murder innocent women and children deserve the same rights as a soldier engaged in battle, defending his country, and following orders from his legitimate government?

Would you like to comment on the allied fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo? Women and children are often legitimate targets in a defensive war. The trouble with Islamic terrorists is that they believe they are fighting a defensive war.

They especially do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens. There were even wimps here in this country who didn't want us shipping them out to other Moslem countries, for fear their brethren would execute the poor dears.

U.S. Constitution
5th Amendment
“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 offense 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…”

The Constitution makes no distinction between a citizen of the United States and all other persons. If we are holding the people at Gitmo under a treaty that the U.S. has signed, then these people must be treated in accordance with the treaty. If we are holding these people under U.S. law, they are entitled to the same legal due process that our own citizens are entitled to.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

The Constitution makes no distinction between a citizen of the United States and all other persons.

I believe it does.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I thought all the romantic creative writing in this genre was in the Cold Warrior Nominations thread, Ali!

[Aliantha]

I don't think I've read that one.