constitutional rights for terrorists? ..no way!

[Kandahar]

sorry it took so long, i was chatting with a limey friend of mine on MSN IM


I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
i am entitled to constitutional protection
clear enough for you
constitutional protections apply only to Americans

It doesn't say that anywhere in the Constitution. It does, however, imply "inalienable rights." Anyone under the custody of our government is entitled to constitutional protections.

foreigners are not entitled to them

That has so many ghastly implications. If you travelled abroad to a liberal democracy, would you think that they would have the right to jail YOU without any charges?

Why should the place of birth of the person in question be any factor at all, if they're under American custody? The intent of the Constitution is to safeguard rights that humans are entitled to simply for being humans, not to give our own citizens any special status of protection under American law.

we did not give the nazi's our constitutional rights,

Actually, we did in most cases.

so i will be damned if some backwards ass fanatic will get them

So your justification is "It's OK because we've done it before." :roll:

your idealism is a delusion that will reap the downfall of the US, if it spreads

If home-grown terrorists are entitled to those protections and still end up getting convicted without any problem, what exactly is the distinction with foreign-born terrorists? How will granting them constitutional protections "reap the downfall of the US," but granting Americans constitutional protections won't?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

If we truly believe in these "inalienable rights endowed by their creator," if "all men are created equal," if we truly these rights to be "self evident", then they do not apply to simply US citizens.

 

[TimmyBoy]

so you agree with Bush's philosophy of toppling Saddam to install a democracy in the ME so it spreads to surrounding countries, and therefor you support the War in Iraq?

reread the constitution, it applies to Americans ONLY
not illegal aliens, not foriegn nationals, and certainly not Terrorists
please correct me if i am mistaken

and what would you have our soldiers do
surround a terrorist stronghold and have the Translator read them Miranda (sp?)
thats required by our constitution

Bush stated the reason why went into Iraq was because of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was later proven false and it also seems obvious that he was using "fighting for freedom" as a pretext for his intentions of seizing and controling Middle East oil rather than spreading democracy to the Middle East. George Orwell called this sort of talk as "double think" where a politican states one thing but really means or wants to do another. If he was interested in spreading democracy in the Middle East, why didn't he invade Saudia Arabia and topple the royal family? Why would he allow the Royal Family to remain in power if he wants to spread "freedom" to the Middle East? It would seem to me that he exploited the nationalist sentiment in the US in the wake of the September 11 attacks to garner support for an invasion that he normally couldn't garner support for. And then he invaded Iraq under the pretext and lie of fabricated evidence of WMD and of "spreading freedom in the Middle East." Freedom is something that you can't force on people. You can certainly encourage it, but the US can't give freedom to others. It is something that is earned not given by the hand of the US. We can certainly promote it but I think it is abomination to invade a country and claiming you are doing it "for freedom." He also used the September 11 attacks to destroy freedom here in the US which gave more ammunition to the terrorists that seek to destroy us by passing his unpatriotic "Patriot" Act, which the name of this act is another example of George Orwell's terminology "double think." Passing a traitor, treasonous act and calling it "Patriot." If you ask me, it is BUSH who is the real TRAITOR to this country. He is the traitor to freedom and he will be partly to blame for fostering an environment in the world that leads to future terrorism. You can't protect freedom in the US by destroying it and you certainly cannot promote it abroad while destroying it at home.

 

[26 X World Champs]

reread the constitution, it applies to Americans ONLY not illegal aliens, not foriegn nationals, and certainly not Terrorists please correct me if i am mistaken

You've been corrected:

Generally, as a matter of law, citizens and non-citizens have the same legal rights if they are arrested for a crime.

Source: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/civillibertiespoll2/

 

[Paladin]

And you only want to believe that all dem/libs are bad.

not at all
Just you ted

Be that as it may, the rest is true?
ted

 

[TimmyBoy]

So long as the US only intervenes in the oil rich Middle East while claiming to do it "for freedom" while on the same token ignoring the vast crimes, genocides of tyrannical rulers in other parts of the world; the US government will never be able to convince me or the rest of the world that the US is in the Middle East "for freedom."

 

[TimmyBoy]

The US government will be judged by it's actions and not it's words and the US government's actions do not meet it's words.

 

[DeeJayH]

Do you find debating/talking to yourself more interesting than with others?

 

[DeeJayH]

Bush stated the reason why went into Iraq was because of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

right there is where all your flawed logic comes from
WMD's were a PART of the reason we went into Iraq
it was not the Sole reason
get over it already
everybody thought Saddam had them or was trying to rebuild the programs
that is fact
they were wrong for the most part
but that is not a lie

 

[DeeJayH]

You've been corrected:

Source: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/civillibertiespoll2/

your response is an article about a poll?

 

[DeeJayH]

The US government will be judged by it's actions and not it's words and the US government's actions do not meet it's words.

and Bush will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents
IF he is successful in Iraq, and it spreads
that is what really irks the bush haters
they talk the talk
but the rep/cons walk the walk

 

[stsburns]

I think Durbin is insane. One day his party is trying to give illegals drivers license, the next day he wants to give them American rights to non-American citizens. Now this seems quite foolish if he wants to defend our "National Security". I wonder which third party paid Durbin for this attack on our American rights? Anyone want to take a guess? :mrgreen:

 

[DeeJayH]

Actually, we did in most cases.

well if they were awarded protection under our constitution
why did the Geneva Conventions have to be created?

the nazi's were captured, interned, and released to their homeland at the end of the war
just like it has always been done
they were not given civilian lawyers
they were not brought before civilian courts
they were not afforded the rights of an american citizen under our constitution by any stretch of the imagination
or perhaps you can back up your assertion with proof
thank you in advance for your cooperation :2razz:

if all foriegners are are afforded Constitutional protections
does that mean that Illegal Aliens are brought to justice before a jury of their peers (other illegal aliens)
and that these illegal aliens adjudicated that the said illegal alien was to be deported?

 

[DeeJayH]

I think Durbin is insane. One day his party is trying to give illegals drivers license, the next day he wants to give them American rights to non-American citizens. Now this seems quite foolish if he wants to defend our "National Security". I wonder which third party paid Durbin for this attack on our American rights? Anyone want to take a guess? :mrgreen:

they dont call him Turbin Durbin for nothing :rofl
he is a douchebag

 

[stsburns]

they dont call him Turbin Durbin for nothing :rofl
he is a douchebag

Thanks for the laugh, I really needed it today! :rofl :mrgreen:

 

[Paladin]

...why did the Geneva Conventions have to be created?

Geneva Convention accords were created in part because of the American Civil War.

Geneva Conventions

During WWII, the US afforded fair and civilized treatment to all enemy combatants. Even the Japanese, who did not sign the accords and visited inhuman atrocities upon any occupied country or captured prisoners.
This administration won't.
ted

 

[stsburns]

Geneva Convention accords were created in part because of the American Civil War.

Geneva Conventions

During WWII, the US afforded fair and civilized treatment to all enemy combatants. Even the Japanese, who did not sign the accords and visited inhuman atrocities upon any occupied country or captured prisoners.
This administration won't.
ted

But they didn't give them American rights, they gave them geneva rights? BIG DIFFERENCE?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Terrorist are not Americans.American constitutional rights only for United State citizens.

That's not exactly true, as there are many rights granted to a foreigner, such as the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy trial, etc.

But, prisoners of war do not get Constitutional rights, as their rights are defines elsewhere. Specifically, they have no right to a trial, no right to an attorney and no right to pettition a court -- they are POWs, not criminals.

 

[Paladin]

But they didn't give them American rights, they gave them geneva rights? BIG DIFFERENCE?

I have no idea what you are asking or arguing.
During WWII, the US and Germany signed the Geneva Accords. So any POW on either side were treated fairly and in accordance with the Geneva treaty.
Japan did not sign the accords and treated the countries and people under their thumb horribly. Despite how the Japanese acted, the US treated captured Japanese in full accordance with the Geneva treaty.
Our current administration will not treat captured enemy combatants under the Geneva treaty, justifying their actions with semantics.
ted

 

[Paladin]

But, prisoners of war do not get Constitutional rights, as their rights are defines elsewhere. Specifically, they have no right to a trial, no right to an attorney and no right to pettition a court -- they are POWs, not criminals.

I would have no problem at all with this. Except our administration won't declare the prisoners POWs or criminals. They treat them as if they are non-entities.
ted

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would have no problem at all with this. Except our administration won't declare the prisoners POWs or criminals. They treat them as if they are non-entities.
ted

They have been classified as "Enemy Combatants", specifically, "Illegal enemy combatants".
If you can discern the difference between "Enemy Combatant" and "Prisoner of War", please fill me in.

Specifically, please fill me in on the part where it says "Enemy Combatants", legal or otherwise, get a trial, get a lawyer, and have the right to petition US courts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Our current administration will not treat captured enemy combatants under the Geneva treaty, justifying their actions with semantics.

Since they are illegal enemy conbatatnts, they do not enjoy all the rights afforded to capturees under the genevea Conventions -- however, they HAVE been given most of those rights, as allowed by military necessity.

What rights do they have that have not been respected?

 

[Paladin]

They have been classified as "Enemy Combatants".
If you can discern the difference between "Enemy Combatant" and "Prisoner of War", please fill me in.

I guess, if we are truly at war, they should be classified as POWs. If we are not at war, they would be Enemy Combatants. If they are not going to be classified as POWs, then we should err on the side of right and give them some sort of rights, like counsel and explanation of the charges against them.

Specifically, please fill me in on the part where it says "Enemy Combatants" get a trial, get a lawyer, and have the right to petition US courts.

I can't, but I would be more comfortable with affording them rights until a more complete designation is given. In wars previous to Vietnam, you had civilians and military personnel. No changes to the law was made in regards to those who fought against an enemy without officially enlisting.

I would also be more comfortable knowing that everything our government did was above board. I don't like knowing that our government is sneaky and inhuman.

Whatever else comes from our involvement in the mideast, law books will have to be re-written.
ted

 

[Paladin]

Since they are illegal enemy conbatatnts, they do not enjoy all the rights afforded to capturees under the genevea Conventions -- however, they HAVE been given most of those rights, as allowed by military necessity.

Since they are not POWs, they should be charged with some crime and given access to the US courts.

We are the good guys! We shouldn't resort to underhanded tricks and verbiage to fight a "war"!

What rights do they have that have not been respected?

I dunno, how about the right to know why they are being held?
Or the right to plead their case?
ted

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess, if we are truly at war, they should be classified as POWs. If we are not at war, they would be Enemy Combatants. If they are not going to be classified as POWs, then we should err on the side of right and give them some sort of rights, like counsel and explanation of the charges against them.

POW has a specific definition. These people do not fit it.
As POWs or enemy combatants, legal or illegal, they STILL do not have a right to hear charges or a right a trial because thet arent criminals - they were captured while fighting against us, not violating US law.

These people cannot hear the charges against them or stand trial because there are no charges to bring.

I would also be more comfortable knowing that everything our government did was above board. I don't like knowing that our government is sneaky and inhuman.

You ASSUME that our governmenr is sneaky and inhuman, though you cannot specity what Genevea protections are not afforded to the enemy combatants.

Whatever else comes from our involvement in the mideast, law books will have to be re-written.

Yes - we arent fighting the sort of war that is usually fought.
Of course, it seems somehwat silly to present the idea that international terrorist organizations become party to any sort of Geneva-esque accord.