Bush and war crimes

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have not read the decision, but wonder why a military cannot make a distinction between a legitimate prisoner of war as opposed to noncitizens threatening our country out of terror. The distinction is clear to me, and threatening noncitizens who are not making war but merely killing does not concern me as much as far as civil liberties of citizens or legitimate prisoners of war.

Noncitizens who have not entered this country, who have not paid taxes should not receive the same protections as our citizens.

I think you are very misinformed on this issue. Some of the individuals being treated as illegal combatants are American citizens who were caught on American soil (see, for example, Padilla). Even if that were not the case, your tax language is peculiar. Is paying taxes what gives you your rights? I think the founding fathers would have strongly disagreed with your views.

Your view assumes that our rights flow from our government, rather than being inalienable rights inherent from our existence. If our rights flow from our government, then our government is just in removing our "rights."

Government has the power to coerce in order to maintain order (thus protecting our rights against infringement from others). Not paying taxes can result in a diminishment of our rights, it should NEVER result in an extinguishment of our rights.

This post makes you sound like a bit of a socialist! I am surprised at you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think you are very misinformed on this issue. Some of the individuals being treated as illegal combatants are American citizens who were caught on American soil (see, for example, Padilla). Even if that were not the case, your tax language is peculiar. Is paying taxes what gives you your rights? I think the founding fathers would have strongly disagreed with your views.

Your view assumes that our rights flow from our government, rather than being inalienable rights inherent from our existence. If our rights flow from our government, then our government is just in removing our "rights."

Government has the power to coerce in order to maintain order (thus protecting our rights against infringement from others). Not paying taxes can result in a diminishment of our rights, it should NEVER result in an extinguishment of our rights.

This post makes you sound like a bit of a socialist! I am surprised at you.

You must be a litigator, but somebody seeking truth, you are not.

There are other options than believing from my arguments that I believe our rights flow from government.

No, people who contract together reserve rights for those who also contract and for their offspring. Noncitizens have not contracted together, so the group may deny the outsiders rights once they enter into our realm and dominion. You knew that argument but sought out a red herring or a strawman.

Once in a while, you might try honest discussion, instead of legal argumentation and distortion.

Those who participate in the contract reserve the rights. The nonparticipating aliens have no rights. I'm okay with that. They would have rights if they did not threaten us, but by threatening us in violation of all standards of decency they have stripped themselves of rights, regardless what the damn Hague says. They're just a bunch of European socialists whom I disrespect.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You must be a litigator, but somebody seeking truth, you are not.

There are other options than believing from my arguments that I believe our rights flow from government.

No, people who contract together reserve rights for those who also contract and for their offspring. Noncitizens have not contracted together, so the group may deny the outsiders rights once they enter into our realm and dominion. You knew that argument but sought out a red herring or a strawman.

Once in a while, you might try honest discussion, instead of legal argumentation and distortion.

Those who participate in the contract reserve the rights. The nonparticipating aliens have no rights. I'm okay with that. They would have rights if they did not threaten us, but by threatening us in violation of all standards of decency they have stripped themselves of rights, regardless what the damn Hague says. They're just a bunch of European socialists whom I disrespect.

I did know that argument, and I also knew it was a bogus argument so ignored it and moved on to the next logical conclusion. The Constitution applies to everyone equally on US soil, regardless of their status as citizen or "nonparticipating alien." The 14th Amendment does not distinguish based on status as a citizen (in fact, it prohibits such distinctions).

You specifically tied rights to a person's status as a TAXPAYER. I remain shocked you would even advance that as an argument.

By the way, are you suggesting illegal aliens have no rights? If so, give me a minute so I can stop laughing.

[Archaea]

I have not researched the applicability of the 14th Amendment to legal aliens, illegal aliens and those detainees not on US soil, soil under US control.

If the current opinions are that it applies to detainees, then I disagree with it as good law. It is bad policy. And the President and Congress should change it or disregard it.

Laws that protect noncitizens not lawfully here should as a matter of policy have rights.

Lawful citizens and aliens should have rights. (Lawful beings).

Unlawful aliens aggressively threatening lawful beings do not deserve the same or similar protections as a matter of policy.

The aggressors never aligned themselves with a foreign nation, joined the army of a foreign nation to engage in lawful war.

These are true aliens disembodied of rights by virtue of their actions.

If they were citizens, or lawful aliens, then the rights should be embued to them.

All other policy is bullshit PR not believed but merely advocated for political advantage.

[Archaea]

I don't believe illegal aliens possess the same level of rights and face deportation proceedings, but correct me if I err oh immigration expert.

I simply do not believe that aliens abroad, unaligned by nations, deserve any rights if they use aggression against our citizens.

Congrats, you are helping convert me to anarchy, and you might even convert a man to loss of faith in God.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have not researched the applicability of the 14th Amendment to legal aliens, illegal aliens and those detainees not on US soil, soil under US control.

If the current opinions are that it applies to detainees, then I disagree with it as good law. It is bad policy. And the President and Congress should change it or disregard it.

Laws that protect noncitizens not lawfully here should as a matter of policy have rights.

Lawful citizens and aliens should have rights. (Lawful beings).

Unlawful aliens aggressively threatening lawful beings do not deserve the same or similar protections as a matter of policy.

The aggressors never aligned themselves with a foreign nation, joined the army of a foreign nation to engage in lawful war.

These are true aliens disembodied of rights by virtue of their actions.

If they were citizens, or lawful aliens, then the rights should be embued to them.

All other policy is bullshit PR not believed but merely advocated for political advantage.

What happened to your argument that I wasn't interested in truth? Perhaps you should conduct a bit of research first next time?

The Constitution applies equally to EVERYONE on US soil. Whether it applies extraterritorially is debatable.

I don't know how you could consider the granting of rights to everyone on US soil to be a PR stunt. If anything, it is bad PR. Most Americans, wrongly, would be opposed to granting terrorists rights if caught on US soil. There wasn't much outrage when Padilla was captured in the US (as a US citizen) and then shipped off to Guantanamo. If not for the media pressure, he would still be in Guantanamo.

We grant rights to everyone, because otherwise we grant the government the ability to remove our rights by alleging we are engaged in certain conduct, not for PR reasons. Just imagine the difficulties of making your approach the law:

Unlawful aliens aggressively threatening lawful beings do not deserve the same or similar protections as a matter of policy.

So in determining if someone has rights, you would conduct an inquiry to determine if they were here lawfully. If they weren't, you would then ask if they were aggressively threatening lawful beings (what constitutes a threat? economic threats? physical? verbal?). Apparently threatening other non-lawful beings would not result in losing your rights. Very, very odd.

The best part is when you suggest that if the Constitution doesn't say what you want it to say, Congress and the President should just ignore it.

If the current opinions are that it applies to detainees, then I disagree with it as good law. It is bad policy. And the President and Congress should change it or disregard it.

I am sure that wouldn't have any negative implications. What other provisions should we ignore?

[realtall]

Originally Posted by Archaea

When did Al Quaeda sign the Geneva Convention?

This was exactly my reaction when I heard about the ruling. I'm unsure of the specifics but I thought that only those countries who signed the Geneva Convention were actually entitled to its protections.

[The_Tick]

So.....

When are the libs going to go after the Al Queda folks in Iraq that captured the two U.S. Soldiers 2 weeks ago and brutally tortured them before killing them?

I forgot....Geneva convention applies only to us.


Here is my philosophy....

If our enemy abides by it, then I feel we should also.

If they don't? Kill em.

They play this game because they know that media/dems/libs wont allow us.

[Archaea]

RealTall, it is possible, without having read its particulars, if ever, that the signatories to it must abide by it even if nonmembers are involved. The way people word these things strains reason.

However, I can see a logical distinction and heirarchy of rights.

Citizens, lawful, are entitled to full due process of law.

Lawful aliens, also, but not quite until they become citizens.

Next would be unlawful aliens that have some basic, but lesser, protections of law, those found on US soil.

Prisoners of war, as defined by soldiers fighting aligned with a nation against another nation, will have those basic rights afforded generally agreed to.

Finally, non-resident aliens using physical aggression against our citizens divorce themselves of rights, except the right of mercy which they have not shown us.

I can almost see this as a progression not unlike those of ancient Romans.

It is very civilized and rational for a nation threatened physically, through acts of terror.

Once again, I have never found it compelling that nation states vis a vis nation states need act as individuals vis a via individuals. The socialists amongst believe otherwise. This uniformity of action is too limiting and illogically prohibits the protection of the whole unit from without.

Basically, if you do not play by the rules, you don't get rules to protect you.

Internally for citizens, we must protect ourselves from government, especially its tendency to abuse its citizens. However, externally our government must protect us from those who seek our harm.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

So.....

When are the libs going to go after the Al Queda folks in Iraq that captured the two U.S. Soldiers 2 weeks ago and brutally tortured them before killing them?

I forgot....Geneva convention applies only to us.


Here is my philosophy....

If our enemy abides by it, then I feel we should also.

If they don't? Kill em.

They play this game because they know that media/dems/libs wont allow us.

Remember when some media started to speculate that maybe Zarquawi didn't die as described? Were you the least bit concerned?

What I find odd, is usually, not always, you don't have liberals dying to protect anybody, except from afar.

When is a man a liberal? When he's protected by guns, laws and regulations sipping wine in his cottage on the Hamptons, going to his Manhattan office, with his professional wife and his one kid in private school.

Not too many liberally minded soldiers in foxholes.

Liberalism in practice is an abysmal failure even if it looks good on the chalkboard.

Libertarian ideals have some merit in practice. Civil liberties for citizens has great merit.