The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 343

JWBear · 06-14-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I must say that I don't understand the ruling. Seriously. Ununiformed enemy combatants aren't even covered by the Geneva convention (in fact, I believe ununiformed enemy combatants were allowed to be shot on capture without question). Why should they be given the same rights as US citizens? I'm not trying to be a jerk. I really don't understand. They aren't US citizens and are not criminals per se, they are soldiers fighting our military in foreign countries. Why should this be under the jurisdiction of the court system?

Because if we refuse to grant suspected enemies of the US to the same rights and dignities we would expect our own citizens to receive; then we might as well grant Bush his wish to wipe his ass with the Constitution - because that's all it will be good for.

scaeagles · 06-14-2008, 08:47 PM

Where in the Constitution do the rights afforded US Citizens apply to those fighting against the uS? All rights are not even guarantees foreign nationals within our country.

Where is the violation of the Constitution? This is what I do not understand.

wendybeth · 06-14-2008, 09:00 PM

Take it up with the Supreme Court then. They rendered a decision based upon their interpretation of the Constitution- read their decision (and not just the dissenting opinions), and you may have your question answered. (I'm not being flip- I haven't read the decision thoroughly yet, but I am fairly confident that their conclusion adheres to the meaning and intent set forth by the Constitution with regards to this subject. They are the Constitutional experts, after all. Even that Thomas guy.

).

scaeagles · 06-14-2008, 09:08 PM

Oh, I understand it, and in the same way the 2000 US Supreme court decisions of 7-2 and 5-4 were disagreed with by many who continue to complain about it to this day, so do I wonder about this. I honestly do not have time to read the entire 70 page decision. In what I have read, it appears to me that combatants are being afforded the same legal rights as US citizens, which I do have a problem with.

wendybeth · 06-14-2008, 09:20 PM

Scaeagles, it's just really sad that we even had to have such a thing in front of the Supreme Court. I think it shows how far we've slid away from our principles, and it only validates the criticism of our country by others. I know you don't care about what the world thinks of us, but we have to be a part of that world and it's up to us to present our best face forward. Guantanamo is a big old black eye, and we need to fix that.

€uroMeinke · 06-14-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Where in the Constitution do the rights afforded US Citizens apply to those fighting against the uS? All rights are not even guarantees foreign nationals within our country.

Where is the violation of the Constitution? This is what I do not understand.

Perhaps not in the constitution, but at least in the Declaration of Independence we speak of "inalienable rights of man," If we think our freedoms and liberties only belong to American citizens, then we have no basis to speak of the human rights of other nations and their citizens, or to invade other countries under the pretense of being "liberators."

JWBear · 06-14-2008, 11:26 PM

Hear, hear!

innerSpaceman · 06-15-2008, 12:09 AM

Scaeagles, I'm going to get personal for a moment, and maybe I will be rebuked for this ... but what the fvck is wrong with you?

scaeagles · 06-15-2008, 07:04 AM

I don't think anything, really. This is not even without precedent....in fact what is happening now is without precedent. In every major conflict - WWII, Korea, Vietnam, whatever - enemy combatants are held for purposes of intellgence gathering and to ensure they are not returning to assist the enemy. In fact, there are 30 documented cases of capturing someone (in this current conflict), releasing them, and then recapturing them.

Why is something wrong with me when I agree with the precedent previously set?

And ISM, I take no offense at your rhetorical question. I've been accused by you and others here of being a homophobe, a bigot, a racist, and countless other untrue things, so this is nothing, really.

Gemini Cricket · 06-15-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I've been accused by you and others here of being a homophobe, a bigot, a racist, and countless other untrue things, so this is nothing, really.

I don't think you're any of those things. But you really should take your kids to the Grand Canyon, you Grand Canyonophobe.

06-14-2008, 08:47 PM	#3422
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Where in the Constitution do the rights afforded US Citizens apply to those fighting against the uS? All rights are not even guarantees foreign nationals within our country. Where is the violation of the Constitution? This is what I do not understand.
	Submit to Quotes

06-14-2008, 09:00 PM	#3423
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Take it up with the Supreme Court then. They rendered a decision based upon their interpretation of the Constitution- read their decision (and not just the dissenting opinions), and you may have your question answered. (I'm not being flip- I haven't read the decision thoroughly yet, but I am fairly confident that their conclusion adheres to the meaning and intent set forth by the Constitution with regards to this subject. They are the Constitutional experts, after all. Even that Thomas guy.). __________________
	Submit to Quotes

06-14-2008, 09:08 PM	#3424
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Oh, I understand it, and in the same way the 2000 US Supreme court decisions of 7-2 and 5-4 were disagreed with by many who continue to complain about it to this day, so do I wonder about this. I honestly do not have time to read the entire 70 page decision. In what I have read, it appears to me that combatants are being afforded the same legal rights as US citizens, which I do have a problem with.
	Submit to Quotes

06-14-2008, 09:20 PM	#3425
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Scaeagles, it's just really sad that we even had to have such a thing in front of the Supreme Court. I think it shows how far we've slid away from our principles, and it only validates the criticism of our country by others. I know you don't care about what the world thinks of us, but we have to be a part of that world and it's up to us to present our best face forward. Guantanamo is a big old black eye, and we need to fix that. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

06-14-2008, 11:26 PM	#3427
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	Hear, hear! __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2008, 12:09 AM	#3428
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Scaeagles, I'm going to get personal for a moment, and maybe I will be rebuked for this ... but what the fvck is wrong with you?
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2008, 07:04 AM	#3429
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I don't think anything, really. This is not even without precedent....in fact what is happening now is without precedent. In every major conflict - WWII, Korea, Vietnam, whatever - enemy combatants are held for purposes of intellgence gathering and to ensure they are not returning to assist the enemy. In fact, there are 30 documented cases of capturing someone (in this current conflict), releasing them, and then recapturing them. Why is something wrong with me when I agree with the precedent previously set? And ISM, I take no offense at your rhetorical question. I've been accused by you and others here of being a homophobe, a bigot, a racist, and countless other untrue things, so this is nothing, really. Last edited by scaeagles : 06-15-2008 at 07:21 AM.
	Submit to Quotes