1 10 6

2009-03-28T17:07:14-07:00

431366

false

1049

active

6951

431366

Why?

Why?

2009-03-28T17:07:14-07:00

18458

false

published

2009-05-18T14:22:47-07:00

6951

431366

n the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario: Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, â€œI am a U.S. citizenâ€*. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[22] reference source:

n the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario: Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, â€œI am a U.S. citizenâ€*. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.<a href="#fn22">22</a> reference source:

2009-03-30T08:38:29-07:00

18708

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:23:01-07:00

1196

3319

2009-03-11T23:15:06-07:00

2009-03-11T23:15:05-07:00

402236

false

1049

active

1196

402236

This issue has unintended consequence on us all

This issue has unintended consequence on us all

2009-03-11T23:15:06-07:00

15294

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:43-07:00

1196

2009-03-01T20:35:35-08:00

389252

false

1049

active

7887

389252

The fact that 120 are opposed to this is frightening. Habeas Corpus has been a right established in most countries for 700+ years, arguably since the Magna Carta. A country without this right is totalitarian, uncivil, and an enemy of liberty and the Constitution.

The fact that 120 are opposed to this is frightening. Habeas Corpus has been a right established in most countries for 700+ years, arguably since the Magna Carta. A country without this right is totalitarian, uncivil, and an enemy of liberty and the Constitution.

2009-03-01T20:35:35-08:00

13718

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:19:43-07:00

7887

389252

Miranda rights don't apply in times of war. Don't forget to follow the rules of chain of evidence on the battle field. ohh enemy combatant (victim) can present a case of insanity and should not be held countable for his actions. All that is garbage and not in the constitution.

Miranda rights don’t apply in times of war. Don’t forget to follow the rules of chain of evidence on the battle field. ohh enemy combatant (victim) can present a case of insanity and should not be held countable for his actions. All that is garbage and not in the constitution.

2009-03-12T19:56:11-07:00

15399

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:46-07:00

1378

389252

It is in the Geneva Conventions, nevertheless. Allow me to enlighten: "Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees." http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMEEM

It is in the Geneva Conventions, nevertheless. Allow me to enlighten: “Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.” <a href="http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMEEM" rel="nofollow">http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMEEM</a>

2009-03-12T20:29:32-07:00

15406

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:47-07:00

3362

389252

Those rules, drawn up by the ICRC, summarize the essence of international humanitarian law. They do not have the authority of a legal instrument and in no way seek to replace the treaties in force. Please tell me ware you find Habeas Corpus in the Geneva Convention?

Those rules, drawn up by the ICRC, summarize the essence of international humanitarian law. They do not have the authority of a legal instrument and in no way seek to replace the treaties in force. Please tell me ware you find Habeas Corpus in the Geneva Convention?

2009-03-13T23:26:09-07:00

15528

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:51-07:00

1378

389252

I just quoted (let me recite) "Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees." Here is the definition: Habeas corpus (IPA: /ËŒheÉªbiË*Ã¦sËˆkÉ”Ë*pÉ™s/) (Latin: You (shall) have the body) is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

I just quoted (let me recite) “Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.” Here is the definition: Habeas corpus (IPA: /ËŒheÉªbiË*Ã¦sËˆkÉ”Ë*pÉ™s/) (Latin: You (shall) have the body) is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus</a>

2009-03-13T23:31:39-07:00

15530

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:51-07:00

3362

389252

Note: I will not continue with this 1-2 days from now. If you want to discuss it then discuss it. I will not continue with this another time.

Note: I will not continue with this 1-2 days from now. If you want to discuss it then discuss it. I will not continue with this another time.

2009-03-13T23:59:40-07:00

15534

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:51-07:00

3362

389252

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Are we in a state of rebellion or invasion shomas? How would bringing these men in Gitmo to trial a threat to public safety? If we have evidence they are criminals, they'll be put to jail. If not they deserve to be innocent until proven guilty. Do you think it's just for one man to be able to arbitrarily label someone an enemy combatant and therefore take away their rights?

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” Are we in a state of rebellion or invasion shomas? How would bringing these men in Gitmo to trial a threat to public safety? If we have evidence they are criminals, they’ll be put to jail. If not they deserve to be innocent until proven guilty. Do you think it’s just for one man to be able to arbitrarily label someone an enemy combatant and therefore take away their rights?

2009-03-14T09:54:00-07:00

15552

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:52-07:00

7887

389252

is habeas corpus suspended for American citizens?

is habeas corpus suspended for American citizens?

2009-03-14T10:45:50-07:00

15554

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:52-07:00

1378

389252

It can be, if you're deemed an "enemy combatant" or a terrorist.

It can be, if you’re deemed an “enemy combatant” or a terrorist.

2009-03-14T12:21:04-07:00

15576

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:53-07:00

7887

389252

Is not an an enemy combatant taken from a battle field? In the case of home grown terrorist do you have the name of even one individual this abuse (suspension of habeas corpus) was perpetuated on? Even john walker, the American Taliban, picked up on a foreign battle field got a fair trial.

Is not an an enemy combatant taken from a battle field? In the case of home grown terrorist do you have the name of even one individual this abuse (suspension of habeas corpus) was perpetuated on? Even john walker, the American Taliban, picked up on a foreign battle field got a fair trial.

2009-03-14T15:32:01-07:00

15587

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:53-07:00

1378

389252

Every man in Gitmo had habeas corpus suspended and some haven't even been charged with a crime for years (and of course there's the whole torture argument, which hasn't even been taking into this discussion). Because they aren't citizens doesn't mean they should be denied human rights.

Every man in Gitmo had habeas corpus suspended and some haven’t even been charged with a crime for years (and of course there’s the whole torture argument, which hasn’t even been taking into this discussion). Because they aren’t citizens doesn’t mean they should be denied human rights.

2009-03-14T20:34:13-07:00

15647

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:56-07:00

7887

389252

were any of them Americans?

were any of them Americans?

2009-03-14T20:46:47-07:00

15652

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:20:56-07:00

1378

389252

should they have been shot on the battle field?

should they have been shot on the battle field?

2009-03-14T20:47:32-07:00

15653

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:56-07:00

1378

389252

Maybe, maybe not. Not really relevant now when they are sitting in Gitmo or one of the US's many secret prisons around the world. These aren't battle fields. These aren't even normal prisons. All justice is lost in them.

Maybe, maybe not. Not really relevant now when they are sitting in Gitmo or one of the US’s many secret prisons around the world. These aren’t battle fields. These aren’t even normal prisons. All justice is lost in them.

2009-03-14T21:31:15-07:00

15664

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:57-07:00

7887

389252

Here's an example of an American citizen in which habeas corpus was stripped for 3.5 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)

Here’s an example of an American citizen in which habeas corpus was stripped for 3.5 years: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)</a>

2009-03-16T16:49:20-07:00

15830

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:21:04-07:00

7887

389252

More on the topic of "enemy combatant" from an MSNBC segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB7pRvntsb8

More on the topic of “enemy combatant” from an MSNBC segment: <object width="330" height="210"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PB7pRvntsb8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PB7pRvntsb8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="330" height="210"></embed></object>

2009-03-16T16:52:09-07:00

15831

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:21:04-07:00

7887

389252

Can I get some clarification. Who did Congress declare war on? Iraq and Afghanistan? I thought they just funded some post-911 pay back. If we can declare war on an activity and not just a country, does that mean that the CIA is probably doing the same thing in the war on drugs. Who did Johnson go after when he declared a war on poverty? OMG, what if they declare war on obesity?

Can I get some clarification. Who did Congress declare war on? Iraq and Afghanistan? I thought they just funded some post-911 pay back. If we can declare war on an activity and not just a country, does that mean that the CIA is probably doing the same thing in the war on drugs. Who did Johnson go after when he declared a war on poverty? OMG, what if they declare war on obesity?

2009-03-16T21:17:27-07:00

15854

false

published

2009-05-18T14:21:05-07:00

1372

389252

war on poverty already has dibs

war on poverty already has dibs

2009-03-16T21:25:59-07:00

15858

false

published

2009-05-18T14:21:05-07:00

1378

389252

Dibs on what? I don't understand the comment.

Dibs on what? I don’t understand the comment.

2009-03-17T05:08:09-07:00

15917

false

published

2009-05-18T14:21:09-07:00

1372

389252

When a country declares war on a idea (ie. war on terror, war on drugs, war on poverty, ect), it's bound for perpetual war because the goals are so abstract. Therefore the citizens will continue to lose their liberties, and we'll continue to flush money down the toilet.

When a country declares war on a idea (ie. war on terror, war on drugs, war on poverty, ect), it’s bound for perpetual war because the goals are so abstract. Therefore the citizens will continue to lose their liberties, and we’ll continue to flush money down the toilet.

2009-03-17T06:38:06-07:00

15920

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:21:09-07:00

7887

389252

To answer your question Recluse, Congress has never officially declared war on anything or anyone (ie. with a Declaration of War) since WWII and this was the last time we followed the Constitution as far as war power are concerned. Since then, Congress has shirked their responsibility by delegating more power to the president, now he declares war on just about anything he wants (I thought this was one of the reasons why we broke away from England, so we wouldn't be ruled by a king?). Congress is pretty much a ceremonial position now as they no longer claim any responsibility or take any for that matter.

To answer your question Recluse, Congress has never officially declared war on anything or anyone (ie. with a Declaration of War) since WWII and this was the last time we followed the Constitution as far as war power are concerned. Since then, Congress has shirked their responsibility by delegating more power to the president, now he declares war on just about anything he wants (I thought this was one of the reasons why we broke away from England, so we wouldn’t be ruled by a king?). Congress is pretty much a ceremonial position now as they no longer claim any responsibility or take any for that matter.

2009-03-17T06:45:52-07:00

15922

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:21:09-07:00

7887

389252

Right you are bandito. So if we never declared war on a country, how can you be declared an enemy combatant?

Right you are bandito. So if we never declared war on a country, how can you be declared an enemy combatant?

2009-03-18T09:58:30-07:00

16039

false

published

2009-05-18T14:21:15-07:00

1372

389252

Here is the gut issue of MCA 2006. It provides the means to CTA for torture tactics already committed. in addition to actually Planning ahead for the eventual civil unrest they feared would threaten the gated community class from the superfluous rabble, they believed, would be spurred into action by the imminent economy collapse. In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario: Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, â€œI am a U.S. citizenâ€*. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[22] reference source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Claims_the_MCA_is_an_unconstitutional_ex_post_facto_law

Here is the gut issue of MCA 2006. It provides the means to CTA for torture tactics already committed. in addition to actually Planning ahead for the eventual civil unrest they feared would threaten the gated community class from the superfluous rabble, they believed, would be spurred into action by the imminent economy collapse. In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario: Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, â€œI am a U.S. citizenâ€*. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.<a href="#fn22">22</a> reference source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Claims_the_MCA_is_an_unconstitutional_ex_post_facto_law" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Claims_the_MCA_is_an_unconstitutional_ex_post_facto_law</a>

2009-03-19T02:34:15-07:00

16107

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:21:19-07:00

1196

2009-01-22T13:04:20-08:00

312582

false

1049

active

4415

312582

I agree with cmpastore: I condone torture of any means against anyone who targets my country. They are not citizens of this country and OUR rights are for only citizens of our country. We have to protect our Sovereignty at ALL COST.

I agree with cmpastore: I condone torture of any means against anyone who targets my country. They are not citizens of this country and OUR rights are for only citizens of our country. We have to protect our Sovereignty at ALL COST.

2009-01-22T13:04:20-08:00

9107

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:37-07:00

4415

312582

You would certainly have a point if we were still living in a nationally segmented world. However, since we are living in a global world where pursuing security mono-nationally is just as silly as pursuing a mono-nationalistic economy, I would suggest that our own rights and quality of life are wrapped-up in the rights and lives of others. Our rights are inextricably connected to the rights of others. If, in attempting to secure our country, we walk all over another's rights and the dignity of their humanity as if it were less than ours or worthless, we invite them to do the same to our rights, our lives and the lives of our neighbors, friends and family. For this reason, unswerving attempts to secure our own protection without consideration for the protection of the rights of others will not find us more security, but more fear.

You would certainly have a point if we were still living in a nationally segmented world. However, since we are living in a global world where pursuing security mono-nationally is just as silly as pursuing a mono-nationalistic economy, I would suggest that our own rights and quality of life are wrapped-up in the rights and lives of others. Our rights are inextricably connected to the rights of others. If, in attempting to secure our country, we walk all over another’s rights and the dignity of their humanity as if it were less than ours or worthless, we invite them to do the same to our rights, our lives and the lives of our neighbors, friends and family. For this reason, unswerving attempts to secure our own protection without consideration for the protection of the rights of others will not find us more security, but more fear.

2009-05-01T16:17:25-07:00

21227

false

published

2009-05-18T14:24:32-07:00

8526

2009-01-22T10:05:49-08:00

311809

false

1049

active

6996

311809

I condone torture of any means against anyone who targets my country. They are not citizens of this country and OUR rights are for only citizens of our country.

I condone torture of any means against anyone who targets my country. They are not citizens of this country and OUR rights are for only citizens of our country.

2009-01-22T10:05:49-08:00

9091

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:36-07:00

6996

311809

Agreed!

Agreed!

2009-01-22T13:04:51-08:00

9108

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:37-07:00

4415

2008-11-27T08:42:10-08:00

115560

false

187

1049

247

active

1196

115560

torture is unconstitutional

torture is unconstitutional

2008-11-27T08:42:10-08:00

4752

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:13:49-07:00

1196

115560

Does the US Constitution cover all people everywhere and if so how do we enforce it?

Does the US Constitution cover all people everywhere and if so how do we enforce it?

2009-01-28T11:44:34-08:00

9668

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:55-07:00

2059

115560

No just the ones we have imprisoned, and our occupied territories of course. One at a time.

No just the ones we have imprisoned, and our occupied territories of course. One at a time.

2009-01-28T23:45:05-08:00

9725

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:57-07:00

1196

115560

The President who is bound by the oath of office to protect this Country, must take all the means necessary to ensuring safety of this nation. Is it unconstitutional to act the way our military has acted in the case with Iraq? I believe that we have disgraced ourselves by some of the actions by individuals. Whatever that shows is the sign of the times, nevertheless; learn up on the details of control the President had during WWI and II. President Bush was doing what he believed necessary for the security of this Country. The Constitution applies only to the citizens of the Country. We are the major force in the world to establish and ensure justice to all. Therefore we are liberators to the world, nevertheless; the nation is under the Constituion, not our allies or enemies.

The President who is bound by the oath of office to protect this Country, must take all the means necessary to ensuring safety of this nation. Is it unconstitutional to act the way our military has acted in the case with Iraq? I believe that we have disgraced ourselves by some of the actions by individuals. Whatever that shows is the sign of the times, nevertheless; learn up on the details of control the President had during WWI and II. President Bush was doing what he believed necessary for the security of this Country. The Constitution applies only to the citizens of the Country. We are the major force in the world to establish and ensure justice to all. Therefore we are liberators to the world, nevertheless; the nation is under the Constituion, not our allies or enemies.

2009-03-03T15:04:04-08:00

13947

false

published

2009-05-18T14:19:52-07:00

7692

115560

The President is bound by his oath of office to uphold and defend this country and the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. As a citizen of the country he is bound to the Constitution as are we all. The founding fathers expressly wrote the document to inhibit the rise of monarchy type powers. An effort to keep an elitist few from abusing power we would more commonly equate to dictatorships. That means he is not above the law but rather more closely bound to it. Is that how it works? Based on results, NO. Does that make it right, moral or justifiable to abuse anyoneâ€™s human rights? NO. The issue regarding constitutional abuses perpetrated by our military is beyond my pay grade to make that judgment. But as my nephew currently serving as a Sergeant in the US Army so succinctly put it â€œthe stupid ass holes have made all our lives total hell. And if we were ever captured, they would find us with our head in our lap.â€* We now know the abuses were not a mater of a few bad apples, but rather a top down systemic doctrine in this so called war on terror. The evidence is becoming so insurmountable to the atrocities we have inflicted unjustifiably it will be years before we can clear the slate. The situation of Jose Padilla, locked away in a Navy brig for five years without ever being charged, or to see an attorney, or talk to his family, then released. No charges. Or Mahe Arar a Canadian national renditioned out of JFK and sent to be beaten and tortured off shore without ever being charged. Just two examples of misuse of power and denial of Habeas Corpus, for which we are being forced to pay out tens of millions to our victims and their families in reparations. I have taken some time, as you suggested, to learn up on previous administrations abuse of power under the guise of the War Powers Act and I find them equally despicable. That however never makes two wrongs a right. I care little what Bush believed to be right, believing god told you to murder someone doesnâ€™t make it allowable to do so, it just means youâ€™re a crazy sociopath. The laws of humanity are laws for a reason and no one is above the law. The basic law, do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Or, you reap what you sow, might be applicable here. As the benchmark as liberators of the world our track record sucks big time. The only thing we seem real good at is liberating people from the bodies and homes by the millions. I know we have not won many hearts of the masses lately. What we are doing very well is provide the terrorist with ever growing numbers of recruits with heart felt hatred of America and Americans. If we are not willing to extend the human rights laid out in the Geneva Convention, when it is well within our ability to do so, what can we expect in return?

The President is bound by his oath of office to uphold and defend this country and the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. As a citizen of the country he is bound to the Constitution as are we all. The founding fathers expressly wrote the document to inhibit the rise of monarchy type powers. An effort to keep an elitist few from abusing power we would more commonly equate to dictatorships. That means he is not above the law but rather more closely bound to it. Is that how it works? Based on results, NO. Does that make it right, moral or justifiable to abuse anyoneâ€™s human rights? NO. The issue regarding constitutional abuses perpetrated by our military is beyond my pay grade to make that judgment. But as my nephew currently serving as a Sergeant in the US Army so succinctly put it â€œthe stupid ass holes have made all our lives total hell. And if we were ever captured, they would find us with our head in our lap.â€* We now know the abuses were not a mater of a few bad apples, but rather a top down systemic doctrine in this so called war on terror. The evidence is becoming so insurmountable to the atrocities we have inflicted unjustifiably it will be years before we can clear the slate. The situation of Jose Padilla, locked away in a Navy brig for five years without ever being charged, or to see an attorney, or talk to his family, then released. No charges. Or Mahe Arar a Canadian national renditioned out of JFK and sent to be beaten and tortured off shore without ever being charged. Just two examples of misuse of power and denial of Habeas Corpus, for which we are being forced to pay out tens of millions to our victims and their families in reparations. I have taken some time, as you suggested, to learn up on previous administrations abuse of power under the guise of the War Powers Act and I find them equally despicable. That however never makes two wrongs a right. I care little what Bush believed to be right, believing god told you to murder someone doesnâ€™t make it allowable to do so, it just means youâ€™re a crazy sociopath. The laws of humanity are laws for a reason and no one is above the law. The basic law, do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Or, you reap what you sow, might be applicable here. As the benchmark as liberators of the world our track record sucks big time. The only thing we seem real good at is liberating people from the bodies and homes by the millions. I know we have not won many hearts of the masses lately. What we are doing very well is provide the terrorist with ever growing numbers of recruits with heart felt hatred of America and Americans. If we are not willing to extend the human rights laid out in the Geneva Convention, when it is well within our ability to do so, what can we expect in return?

2009-03-06T05:35:51-08:00

14328

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:08-07:00

1196

115560

"All men are created equal." Torture is unconstitutional wherever and whenever it is practiced.

“All men are created equal.” Torture is unconstitutional wherever and whenever it is practiced.

2009-03-06T10:25:43-08:00

14351

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:09-07:00

3362

115560

All men ARE created equal, But all men ARE NOT equal!

All men ARE created equal, But all men ARE NOT equal!

2009-03-06T10:59:27-08:00

14354

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:20:09-07:00

7692

115560

In what respect?

In what respect?

2009-03-06T11:09:05-08:00

14356

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:20:09-07:00

3362

115560

In what respect? The "All men are created equal" discussion here is on Constitutionality and politics.

In what respect? The “All men are created equal” discussion here is on Constitutionality and politics.

2009-03-06T11:39:09-08:00

14361

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:09-07:00

3362

115560

Let us understand one thing; the US Constitution does not fully apply to non-citizens. It does not apply at all to enemy combatants (See Geneva convention for the definition of enemy combatant). â€œthe stupid ass holes have made all our lives total hell. And if we were ever captured, they would find us with our head in our lap.â€* With all due respect to the Sergeant could he describe how American prisoners have been treated since 1945? How about during the Gulf War? Does he remember the Seal who was on leave? Happened to be on a highjacked airliner and was tortured and killed for being an American serviceman? You see, as with you, a lack of knowledge of history provides you with an artificial picture of who and what is really going on. â€œThe laws of humanity are laws for a reason and no one is above the law.â€* You may believe this however we are discussing the Constitution and its applicability to enemy combatants. "All men are created equal." That line, noble as it is, is from the â€œDeclaration of Independenceâ€* not the Constitution. Under the Constitution Citizens are only equal before the Bar of Justice, no where else. â€œTorture is unconstitutional wherever and whenever it is practiced.â€* Torture, reprehensible as it may be, is only unconstitutional when practiced on individuals who are Citizens of the United States, covered by its laws or US Senate ratified treaties.

Let us understand one thing; the US Constitution does not fully apply to non-citizens. It does not apply at all to enemy combatants (See Geneva convention for the definition of enemy combatant). â€œthe stupid ass holes have made all our lives total hell. And if we were ever captured, they would find us with our head in our lap.â€* With all due respect to the Sergeant could he describe how American prisoners have been treated since 1945? How about during the Gulf War? Does he remember the Seal who was on leave? Happened to be on a highjacked airliner and was tortured and killed for being an American serviceman? You see, as with you, a lack of knowledge of history provides you with an artificial picture of who and what is really going on. â€œThe laws of humanity are laws for a reason and no one is above the law.â€* You may believe this however we are discussing the Constitution and its applicability to enemy combatants. “All men are created equal.” That line, noble as it is, is from the â€œDeclaration of Independenceâ€* not the Constitution. Under the Constitution Citizens are only equal before the Bar of Justice, no where else. â€œTorture is unconstitutional wherever and whenever it is practiced.â€* Torture, reprehensible as it may be, is only unconstitutional when practiced on individuals who are Citizens of the United States, covered by its laws or US Senate ratified treaties.

2009-03-07T12:46:55-08:00

14571

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:16-07:00

2059

115560

I trust this is not a conversation with John Yoo. The understanding that the Constitution is a guide, a gauge in the governance and fundamental rights of American citizens is understood. (see earlier comments this Priority) Does that mean, as John Yoo so neatly split the hairs of the Constitution, as Americans we should descend to and subject ourselves to the lowest possible denominator when confronted by other human beings? If history is where you want to hang your hat, let us move past the Constitution a bit to, letâ€™s say, George Washington. The Bench Mark regarding the issue of American torture and certainly relevant to any discussion thereof. Historical Quote: â€œShould any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a causeâ€¦ for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.â€* - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775 â€œWE DO NOT TORTURE.â€* This, an order given with the full understanding and knowledge of the fact, thousands of American combatants, his soldiers, were being tortured and starved to death in the holds of British prison ships at anchor. You may want to check out how that worked out The issue is not what others employ in the way of inhumane treatment of their prisoners; the issue here is how we treat ours. Our basic humanity is at stake. Denying Habeas Corpusâ€* is cruel and unusual punishment, a.k.a. torture. â€œTorture is unconstitutional wherever and whenever it is practiced.â€* â€œTorture, reprehensible as it may be, is only unconstitutional when practiced on individuals who are Citizens of the United States, covered by its laws or US Senate ratified treaties.â€* I respectfully disagree. Constitutional relevance: Article 1 section 9 The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Amendment 8 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment 13 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (Perhaps I misread or misunderstand, but would this not necessarily be inclusive to former sovereign nations occupied through means of force by our invading armies?) â€œTorture is an affront to and in diametric disregard of the spirit of the Constitution and as such is unconstitutional.â€* I regret having brought to the table of this irrational debate the comments of my nephew. No, I doubt, given he is definitely an â€œIn the Nowâ€* and not overtly vengeful young man, he thought about the unfortunate Seal caught in the meat grinder of insane Fundamentalist hatred. Nor the political rationale. Or weapons of mass destruction. Or oil reserves holdings. â€œIn the Nowâ€* at the time was doing everything in his power to get his people home alive, with all their body parts in their uniforms. Abu Ghraib, unfortunately, was also very much â€œIn the Nowâ€* and making his job increasingly more difficult. One thing that seems to get lost to we Americans is the fact that unlike us, most cultures of the world donâ€™t suffer the Selective Amnesia nurtured by our corporate controlled free, embedded press. A press that will dutifully repeat a lie until it is accepted as fact by the masses. Or just as dutifully will bury a story, so as not to cause question to be injected into the discussion. â€œYou see, as with you, a lack of knowledge of history provides you with an artificial picture of who and what is really going on.â€* You can avail yourself to a more complete picture of the historical ramifications of torture on the tortured and the torturer by checking out the IVAW Winter Soldier testimonies. Whatâ€™s really going on with torture is: According to some former CIA operatives responsible for implementation of questionable interrogation techniques. â€œ90% of the information derived by those methods ended up to be crap. Outdated and deliberate misinformation garnered resulted in innocent people being killed and injured.â€* So, do we fight to restore and uphold the right of habeas corpus by working to get the Military Commissions Act of 2006 repealed? Or do we continue on our current path of leaving it to the discretion of the President if someone, anyone American citizen or not, is an enemy combatant, unlawful enemy combatant, a terrorist, an enemy of the state, an anarchist, a human rights advocate, civil disobedience protester? As things stand now, all of these are subject to being classified by the hair splitting determination of the President, his legal counsel. And as such, are subject to being denied the right of â€*Habeas Corpus.

I trust this is not a conversation with John Yoo. The understanding that the Constitution is a guide, a gauge in the governance and fundamental rights of American citizens is understood. (see earlier comments this Priority) Does that mean, as John Yoo so neatly split the hairs of the Constitution, as Americans we should descend to and subject ourselves to the lowest possible denominator when confronted by other human beings? If history is where you want to hang your hat, let us move past the Constitution a bit to, letâ€™s say, George Washington. The Bench Mark regarding the issue of American torture and certainly relevant to any discussion thereof. Historical Quote: â€œShould any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a causeâ€¦ for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.â€* – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775 â€œWE DO NOT TORTURE.â€* This, an order given with the full understanding and knowledge of the fact, thousands of American combatants, his soldiers, were being tortured and starved to death in the holds of British prison ships at anchor. You may want to check out how that worked out The issue is not what others employ in the way of inhumane treatment of their prisoners; the issue here is how we treat ours. Our basic humanity is at stake. Denying Habeas Corpusâ€* is cruel and unusual punishment, a.k.a. torture. â€œTorture is unconstitutional wherever and whenever it is practiced.â€* â€œTorture, reprehensible as it may be, is only unconstitutional when practiced on individuals who are Citizens of the United States, covered by its laws or US Senate ratified treaties.â€* I respectfully disagree. Constitutional relevance: Article 1 section 9 The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Amendment 8 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment 13 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (Perhaps I misread or misunderstand, but would this not necessarily be inclusive to former sovereign nations occupied through means of force by our invading armies?) â€œTorture is an affront to and in diametric disregard of the spirit of the Constitution and as such is unconstitutional.â€* I regret having brought to the table of this irrational debate the comments of my nephew. No, I doubt, given he is definitely an â€œIn the Nowâ€* and not overtly vengeful young man, he thought about the unfortunate Seal caught in the meat grinder of insane Fundamentalist hatred. Nor the political rationale. Or weapons of mass destruction. Or oil reserves holdings. â€œIn the Nowâ€* at the time was doing everything in his power to get his people home alive, with all their body parts in their uniforms. Abu Ghraib, unfortunately, was also very much â€œIn the Nowâ€* and making his job increasingly more difficult. One thing that seems to get lost to we Americans is the fact that unlike us, most cultures of the world donâ€™t suffer the Selective Amnesia nurtured by our corporate controlled free, embedded press. A press that will dutifully repeat a lie until it is accepted as fact by the masses. Or just as dutifully will bury a story, so as not to cause question to be injected into the discussion. â€œYou see, as with you, a lack of knowledge of history provides you with an artificial picture of who and what is really going on.â€* You can avail yourself to a more complete picture of the historical ramifications of torture on the tortured and the torturer by checking out the IVAW Winter Soldier testimonies. Whatâ€™s really going on with torture is: According to some former CIA operatives responsible for implementation of questionable interrogation techniques. â€œ90% of the information derived by those methods ended up to be crap. Outdated and deliberate misinformation garnered resulted in innocent people being killed and injured.â€* So, do we fight to restore and uphold the right of habeas corpus by working to get the Military Commissions Act of 2006 repealed? Or do we continue on our current path of leaving it to the discretion of the President if someone, anyone American citizen or not, is an enemy combatant, unlawful enemy combatant, a terrorist, an enemy of the state, an anarchist, a human rights advocate, civil disobedience protester? As things stand now, all of these are subject to being classified by the hair splitting determination of the President, his legal counsel. And as such, are subject to being denied the right of â€*Habeas Corpus.

2009-03-10T12:40:02-07:00

15070

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:34-07:00

1196

115560

Hawkeye, thank your for your thorough and articulate reply. I hope this is amply settled. It is people like that who created the Abu Ghraib fiasco and disgrace, and who still will find nothing wrong with torture. What kind of people are these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Hawkeye, thank your for your thorough and articulate reply. I hope this is amply settled. It is people like that who created the Abu Ghraib fiasco and disgrace, and who still will find nothing wrong with torture. What kind of people are these? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse</a>

2009-03-10T13:53:08-07:00

15080

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:35-07:00

3362

115560

It should be noted that Constitutional rights do not only protect the citizens of the United States. I don't believe there is wording to that effect, nor do I believe that the legal system generally recognizes a different standard for non-citizens. If someone wants to correct me, please cite the appropriate legal precedent or argument made by a respected constitutional scholar. Don't bother citing the Bush administration claims. The Bush attorneys said whatever they had to say while Bush was in office and rescinded most of it just before he left office. They knew it was all nonsense.

It should be noted that Constitutional rights do not only protect the citizens of the United States. I don’t believe there is wording to that effect, nor do I believe that the legal system generally recognizes a different standard for non-citizens. If someone wants to correct me, please cite the appropriate legal precedent or argument made by a respected constitutional scholar. Don’t bother citing the Bush administration claims. The Bush attorneys said whatever they had to say while Bush was in office and rescinded most of it just before he left office. They knew it was all nonsense.

2009-03-10T23:31:21-07:00

15160

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:38-07:00

3191

115560

War has always been a diplomatic option thought out time, when other forms failed to yield satisfactory results by either side. There is a difference between crime and war. when our solders are in battle, they should not be worrying about reading Miranda rights, chain of evidence, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just get the job done.

War has always been a diplomatic option thought out time, when other forms failed to yield satisfactory results by either side. There is a difference between crime and war. when our solders are in battle, they should not be worrying about reading Miranda rights, chain of evidence, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just get the job done.

2009-03-12T19:44:52-07:00

15398

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:46-07:00

1378

115560

I disagree with this legal opinion. In the particular case of an illegal war (where the pretext and cause for was was fabricated, i.e. Iraq), after the "job is done" there needs to convene an International Tribunal to prosecute accountable war criminals. So, I think it really does matter what goes on even in a fraudulent war.

I disagree with this legal opinion. In the particular case of an illegal war (where the pretext and cause for was was fabricated, i.e. Iraq), after the “job is done” there needs to convene an International Tribunal to prosecute accountable war criminals. So, I think it really does matter what goes on even in a fraudulent war.

2009-03-12T20:24:39-07:00

15404

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:20:46-07:00

3362

115560

I disagree with this legal opinion. In the particular case of an illegal war (where the pretext and cause for war was fabricated, i.e. Iraq), after the "job is done" there needs to convene an International Tribunal to prosecute the accountable war criminals. So, I think it really does matter what goes on even in a fraudulent war.

I disagree with this legal opinion. In the particular case of an illegal war (where the pretext and cause for war was fabricated, i.e. Iraq), after the “job is done” there needs to convene an International Tribunal to prosecute the accountable war criminals. So, I think it really does matter what goes on even in a fraudulent war.

2009-03-12T20:25:42-07:00

15405

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:47-07:00

3362

115560

it was a war, although one that was not done constitutionally. Authority to take action was given by the congress who in doing so surrendered the power to one man. We need to learn from this and remember the lessons of our forfathers, The federal government should limit itself to the constitution. if the people wish it be amended then go though that process too. to expect our solders should read the enemy Miranda rights in battle is crazy

it was a war, although one that was not done constitutionally. Authority to take action was given by the congress who in doing so surrendered the power to one man. We need to learn from this and remember the lessons of our forfathers, The federal government should limit itself to the constitution. if the people wish it be amended then go though that process too. to expect our solders should read the enemy Miranda rights in battle is crazy

2009-03-13T23:38:27-07:00

15531

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:51-07:00

1378

115560

No authority was given to anyone. Deceitfully obtained perhaps. There was no legal basis to provide it.

No authority was given to anyone. Deceitfully obtained perhaps. There was no legal basis to provide it.

2009-03-13T23:40:28-07:00

15532

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:51-07:00

3362

115560

You just went by this like nothing serious had been perpetrated by the highest executive.

You just went by this like nothing serious had been perpetrated by the highest executive.

2009-03-13T23:41:17-07:00

15533

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:51-07:00

3362

115560

Note: I will not continue with this 1-2 days from now. If you want to discuss it then discuss it. I will not continue with this another time.

Note: I will not continue with this 1-2 days from now. If you want to discuss it then discuss it. I will not continue with this another time.

2009-03-14T00:35:09-07:00

15535

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:20:51-07:00

3362