SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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.

I just do not agree, every country in the world has two sets of laws for citizens and non-citizens. Why should the US be different. We have allowed people to take advantage of the loop holes in our society for to long. IMHO, since 9/11 all that was changed and the gloves are off, permanently. It is the price of doing business in this ever changing world. If we do not adapt to the ever increasing threats we shall perish.

[TheMercenary]

Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by DanaC

You are right lol. I meant Indonesia *rolls eyes*.

You still need to get your facts straight.

If you think Indonesia is not anti-American, you are delusional:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9679C8B63

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...600442_pf.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/as...als/index.html

[flaja]

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.

Why?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

The combat at Lexington and Concord was pretty much not an organized event. Even if every American that was shooting at the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord were part of the Massachusetts militia, they were not under the command of the colonial governor. They did not have any legal sanction.

After the British made it back to Boston, armed men from other colonies went to Massachusetts to help with the siege. And even when these armed men were adopted as the colonial army by the Continental Congress in June of 1775 they were still illegal because the Continental Congress did not have any legal standing in the international community at that time.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

So on what grounds do we have the people at Gitmo locked up? Are they not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by 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.

Then perhaps our troops should stay within our borders?

Is Gitmo not under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? If it is under U.S. jurisdiction, can we not guarantee the detainees we have there the same rights that the U.S. government guarantees its own citizens?

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.

How do you know that illegals are here illegally before you give them at least a hearing in court to ascertain their status? You seem to be in the habit of presuming people to be guilty, which is anathema to U.S. jurisprudence.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

So on what grounds do we have the people at Gitmo locked up? Are they not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I am not about to defend all of the enemy combatants captured and sent to Gitmo. Many should go home. If I have my way they will all go home to their home countries and let their own govenments do as they want with them. The way I understand it is there is only a handfull that should and will stand trial under US law, even if it is by Military Tribunal. Enemy Combatants are not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness any more than a serial killer in the US or anyone else who is accused of a crime is entitled to such rights. You lose them when you take up arms against me.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

I haven’t twisted anything. You are the one trying to make the Constitution mean something that its plain wording does not mean.

BTW: Can you cite anything in Madison’s Notes or the Federalist Papers to show that the people who actually prepared the Constitution thought it means what you say it means regarding restricting legal due process to citizens?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

Then perhaps our troops should stay within our borders?

Is Gitmo not under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? If it is under U.S. jurisdiction, can we not guarantee the detainees we have there the same rights that the U.S. government guarantees its own citizens?

No, I do not buy that they are afforded the same rights.

How do you know that illegals are here illegally before you give them at least a hearing in court to ascertain their status? You seem to be in the habit of presuming people to be guilty, which is anathema to U.S. jurisprudence.

How could they be illegals if they are not here illegally? Who says illegals are not given a hearing? Why do you need a hearing if you are caught by the Border Patrol jumping a fence? Such anathema to US jurisprudence is practiced legally everyday.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

I haven’t twisted anything. You are the one trying to make the Constitution mean something that its plain wording does not mean.

BTW: Can you cite anything in Madison’s Notes or the Federalist Papers to show that the people who actually prepared the Constitution thought it means what you say it means regarding restricting legal due process to citizens?

No, no one can including you. This is an area where there is much discussion. Plain wording? Please. People which much greater credentials than you or I have been having these debates for 200 years.

You have mistaken me for someone who is here to convince you of my position. I am not. I certainly don't support your position and you are not going to change my mind on my view of it.

btw, you still have not answered this question, "Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?"

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.

You are the most obtuse person that I have encountered on the net in quite a while. The 5th Amendment says person, it does not say citizen. You have yet to present anything other than your own opinion as evidence that the Constitution limits legal due process to citizens.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

You are the most obtuse person that I have encountered on the net in quite a while. The 5th Amendment says person, it does not say citizen. You have yet to present anything other than your own opinion as evidence that the Constitution limits legal due process to citizens.

Most certainly I did. It is in black and white post #62. It is written on paper on the Constitution itself:


"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.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by 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.

By locking people up at Gitmo has our government not taken away their right to liberty and to pursue happiness? And just how do know that these people deserve to have these rights taken from them for criminal activity if we have proven in a court or tribunal that they are in fact criminals?

Why don’t you give us a list of countries that take away inalienable rights of non-citizens without American-style legal due process?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I just do not agree, every country in the world has two sets of laws for citizens and non-citizens.

Your documentation for this claim is what?