SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

Ever heard of the word factitious?

Originally Posted by flaja

I looked it up, but what’s your point?

There was no point - it was a joke.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

But you said within the last 100 years. World War I went from 1914 to 1918 and the U.S. was involved from 1917 to 1918. The last time I checked 1918 was within the last 100 years.

Yea, but like I said I left WW1 off the list on purpose.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

When you said that legal due process rights under the U.S. Constitution do not apply to non-U.S. citizens.

I stated:

Where did we begin to discuss my values and my family? Where did I say it was ok to torture.

Any jump you made was your own, not one that I supported or made. Nice try. You fail.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It's not a world document. It's a US. Government document, and it applies to the US Government wherever in the world it operates.

Wherever in the world it operates with US Citizens and it applies to those legal citizens only. So a US citizen captured in the Sudan while in the service of USAID for smuggling hash is subjected to our Constitution?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by classicman

There was no point - it was a joke.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factitious

1: produced by humans rather than by natural forces
2 a: formed by or adapted to an artificial or conventional standard b: produced by special effort : SHAM <created a factitious demand by spreading rumors of shortage>


So what is the joke?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, but like I said I left WW1 off the list on purpose.

Because it doesn’t support your claim that American POWs are always mistreated.

[DanaC]

humourless much?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I stated:

Any jump you made was your own, not one that I supported or made. Nice try. You fail.

What have your values and your family to do with legal due process rights for non-citizens? By denying these rights to non-citizens you make torture a legal option.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by flaja

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factitious

1: produced by humans rather than by natural forces
2 a: formed by or adapted to an artificial or conventional standard b: produced by special effort : SHAM <created a factitious demand by spreading rumors of shortage>


So what is the joke?

You know damn well that classic meant "facetious."

You are going out of your way to be obtuse.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Wherever in the world it operates with US Citizens and it applies to those legal citizens only. So a US citizen captured in the Sudan while in the service of USAID for smuggling hash is subjected to our Constitution?

Where in the Constitution does it expressly say that legal due process rights are given only to U.S. citizens and not to anyone else who is subject to U.S. law?

What proof do you have that only citizens are included in We the People and that the expression “no person” in the 5th Amendment means “no citizen”? None. You have no such proof because no such proof exists. You have been shown time and time again that legal due process rights are and have been extended to non-citizens that are subject to U.S. law. You are either too dense to see or too obstinate to admit that you are flat wrong. You are not here to discuss, but rather to argue. You are little more than a bully.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What are you talking about dar? Where did we begin to discuss my values and my family? Where did I say it was ok to torture.

Are you honestly trying to tell me you did not get the gist of my post?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Wherever in the world it operates with US Citizens and it applies to those legal citizens only. So a US citizen captured in the Sudan while in the service of USAID for smuggling hash is subjected to our Constitution?

The person isn't subject to the Constitution, the government is. Wherever, and with respect to whoever, it operates. If the US citizen is captured in the Sudan by the Sudanese government, they are subject to the Sudanese government. If they are captured by the US government (putting aside the idea of the US government capturing people in Sudan), they are subject to the US government, which is itself subject to the US Constitution, no matter where it is acting.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

You know damn well that classic meant "facetious."

You are going out of your way to be obtuse.

LOFL - my spellcheck changed it - Holy crap thats really funny.

thanks Glatt!

[flaja]

Originally Posted by glatt

You know damn well that classic meant "facetious."

You are going out of your way to be obtuse.

No I am not. The so-called joke simply bombed. I did not know the meaning of factitious, and before I looked it up I thought maybe it had something to do with political factions.

BTW: The spellchecker for MS Word does not change factitious to something else.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by flaja

BTW: The spellchecker for MS Word does not change factitious to something else.

But in the Firefox web browser, the user is prompted to change "facitious" to "factitious."