SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[Sundae]

Same here!
Must be the region and the capital punishment stance.

[deadbeater]

I tell you this: if Britain declared the US revolutionaries in 1776 'illegal combatants', or the like, there would be no United States today.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

I tell you this: if Britain declared the US revolutionaries in 1776 'illegal combatants', or the like, there would be no United States today.

More or less they did, and it was their downfall as they failed to recognize, initally and prior to 1776, that it was an organized event.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

Merc, perhaps you missed my point in my post which asked the question about inalienable rights. Are these particular rights only applicable to American citizens or do they apply to all human beings?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by flaja

What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?

Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?

They were 'unlawful combatants' in British eyes, as were the Texas volunteers during the war with Mexico. Santana certainly thought so after the Battle of the Alamo.

When the firing ended, Santa Anna joined his men inside the Alamo. According to many accounts of the battle, between five and seven Texians surrendered during the battle, possibly to General Castrillon. Edmondson speculates that these men might have been sick or wounded and were therefore unable to fight. Incensed that his orders had been ignored, Santa Anna demanded the immediate execution of the survivors. Although Castrillon and several other officers refused to do so, staff officers who had not participated in the fighting drew their swords and killed the unarmed Texians.

There's always someone willing to do the job.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Merc, perhaps you missed my point in my post which asked the question about inalienable rights. Are these particular rights only applicable to American citizens or do they apply to all human beings?

I did not miss your point. This is a good discussion:

On second thought that link went into some Religon BS that I don't support

Certainly "all" men (and women for you people who want to split hairs) have certain rights. But all those rights are not guaranteed by our, the US Constitution, which I believe only pertains to US citizens. I am spit on a number of these issues. I have wrestled with a number of them in my head over the years as I have been involved in much of that as a member of the Armed Forces. The concepts are simple, the application is more difficult.

[Aliantha]

Well surely if an American citizen believes in their constitution, then the idea of inalienable rights must extend to all human beings. If they're inalienable then there really can't be an argument against those rights unless you want to appear to be living by a double standard.

Just because your government guarantees them to your citizens surely doesn't mean that other non US citizens don't have them.

I think the issue is that if the people of the US live under the assumption or idea of inalienable rights, then surely anyone who has any dealings with the US regardless of the nature of those dealings, must be assumed to have those very same rights simply because they are inalienable. They're natural or 'God given' if that's your preferred wording.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It is obvious things have morphed since the beginning, no doubt. The situation was the same for blacks and American Indians. But the Constitution was never intended to address people not in the US.

Then why does the Constitution grant Congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"?

If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I'm sorry but I don't buy your examples from 200 years ago. Much has changed as a direct result of each successive conflict, esp in the 20th Century. What happened at Lexington and Concord is interesting but not as relevant. L&C was in April of 1775 and the Constitution was written in its final form in Sept of 1787, 12 years later. The Constitution is a living breathing document. We have been through this with another poster on here and if you are going to assume a dogmatic position and not take into account any of the changes over the past 200 years then we can't continue to debate the merits of any decision made or event that has occured since.

In other words you have no respect for the rule of law if it doesn’t mean what you personally want it to mean.

[TheMercenary]

Well the way I see it is that we do guarantee them to our citizens but there is no way that we can gurantee them to others who are outside of our borders. And if you are here illegally you are afforded some protections, but not all of them since by being here illegally you have broken our laws and are by all rights a criminal, and if you are captured on a battlefield trying to kill our soldiers you are not guanteed them either. I am not all into the "God given" approach, although I believe that was the intent at the time. Sure I have a double standard when it comes to non-citizens. Just because you have "dealings" with our country in no way affords you all of our rights. That, I believe, is patently ridiculous. If I deal with your country are you going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? If I go to Pakistan or the Sudan or Nigeria, are they going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? Hell no. So why should we?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

In other words you have no respect for the rule of law if it doesn’t mean what you personally want it to mean.

No, it means you can't twist around my words or the Constitution, current law, or advancements in law so it can mean what you want it to mean.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

Then why does the Constitution grant Congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"?

If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?

Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.

[Aliantha]

But if those rights are in fact 'inalienable' then surely that means you have no right to restrict them, if in fact you can.

I think we might need to define the term 'inalienable' because that seems to be the issue although we have had this discussion here several times in the past.

Inalienable is interchangeable with natural as far as rights are concerned. If right is natural, then how can you possibly say that everyone is not entitled to them?

[Aliantha]

If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.

Do you see the double standard here Merc? If your country (any country, not just the US) makes laws concerning non citizens, then there must be some recourse for those non-citizens. It's ok to say that people must live by the law of the land etc, but if there's two sets of laws, that seems a little bit unbalanced and unstable.

[TheMercenary]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

No where does it say that you are in some way guarenteed the right to happiness, only that you can pursuit them. It is quite evident that any and all governments selectively take away individual rights when they are abused for criminal acts. Ours included.