ha ha ha that's classic ... best argument ever

I believe it does.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.

Although I am not sure I ever agreed with it I can see why they did it at the time and there was some value in using the term Unlawful Combatant in a legal sense. If you look at the Law of Land Warefare there is a bit about uniformed organized armies and others. We encountered something all together different.

True. However, just because there are new types of combatants, doesn't mean we get to ignore the law. Why not come up with workable definitions that didn't come skirt legal lines? Or, for that matter, that we some built-in checks and balances (like, you know, the REST of the goverment) to make sure that even if we were detaining really bad people, that we were sure they were, in fact, really bad people. I don't think anyone really wants the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks running around Washington D.C. However, we imprisoned people from Afghanistan that were working on our side and were ratted out as 'terrorists.'
Is that too much to ask to make sure that we've got the right people?

Get your facts straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore
Singapore is not an Islamic country. 51% of the population is Buddhist or Taoist. Only 13.9% is Islamic.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...163d4f25c7&p=8

Would you believe The New Republic?

“…Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist…”

I've seen it claimed on the internet that my bananaphone is cellular, modular, interactive-oldular.

Did we the people include women people who could not vote in America until 1920? Or did this country routinely fine, jail and execute women without giving them their due process rights? Women had no role in preparing the Constitution and thus could not be construed as being any part of “We the People”, but women still had the same legal due process rights that citizens of the United States enjoyed.

So what makes you so certain that the Persons to which the 5th Amendment is applicable is limited to U.S. citizens?

What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?

Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?

If terms like unlawful combatant can be defined by the people in power at the moment for the sake of their own convenience, what happens if a president someday decides to classify people as unlawful combatants simply because they picket the White House or do something like going to church?

As soon as our political leaders decide that they are above the law, the law will cease to protect all of us. You may not be on the great leader’s enemy list today, but what about tomorrow?

It is obvious things have morphed since the beginning, no doubt. The situation was the same for blacks and American Indians. But the Constitution was never intended to address people not in the US.

I'm sorry but I don't buy your examples from 200 years ago. Much has changed as a direct result of each successive conflict, esp in the 20th Century. What happened at Lexington and Concord is interesting but not as relevant. L&C was in April of 1775 and the Constitution was written in its final form in Sept of 1787, 12 years later. The Constitution is a living breathing document. We have been through this with another poster on here and if you are going to assume a dogmatic position and not take into account any of the changes over the past 200 years then we can't continue to debate the merits of any decision made or event that has occured since.

You are right lol. I meant Indonesia *rolls eyes*.

Funny thing is that when I read your post, I thought "Indonesia" not "Singapore." I guess I was trying to understand you.

Same here!
Must be the region and the capital punishment stance.

I tell you this: if Britain declared the US revolutionaries in 1776 'illegal combatants', or the like, there would be no United States today.

More or less they did, and it was their downfall as they failed to recognize, initally and prior to 1776, that it was an organized event.

Merc, perhaps you missed my point in my post which asked the question about inalienable rights. Are these particular rights only applicable to American citizens or do they apply to all human beings?

They were 'unlawful combatants' in British eyes, as were the Texas volunteers during the war with Mexico. Santana certainly thought so after the Battle of the Alamo.

There's always someone willing to do the job.

I did not miss your point. This is a good discussion:

On second thought that link went into some Religon BS that I don't support

Certainly "all" men (and women for you people who want to split hairs) have certain rights. But all those rights are not guaranteed by our, the US Constitution, which I believe only pertains to US citizens. I am spit on a number of these issues. I have wrestled with a number of them in my head over the years as I have been involved in much of that as a member of the Armed Forces. The concepts are simple, the application is more difficult.

Well surely if an American citizen believes in their constitution, then the idea of inalienable rights must extend to all human beings. If they're inalienable then there really can't be an argument against those rights unless you want to appear to be living by a double standard.

Just because your government guarantees them to your citizens surely doesn't mean that other non US citizens don't have them.

I think the issue is that if the people of the US live under the assumption or idea of inalienable rights, then surely anyone who has any dealings with the US regardless of the nature of those dealings, must be assumed to have those very same rights simply because they are inalienable. They're natural or 'God given' if that's your preferred wording.

Then why does the Constitution grant Congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"?

If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?

In other words you have no respect for the rule of law if it doesn’t mean what you personally want it to mean.

Well the way I see it is that we do guarantee them to our citizens but there is no way that we can gurantee them to others who are outside of our borders. And if you are here illegally you are afforded some protections, but not all of them since by being here illegally you have broken our laws and are by all rights a criminal, and if you are captured on a battlefield trying to kill our soldiers you are not guanteed them either. I am not all into the "God given" approach, although I believe that was the intent at the time. Sure I have a double standard when it comes to non-citizens. Just because you have "dealings" with our country in no way affords you all of our rights. That, I believe, is patently ridiculous. If I deal with your country are you going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? If I go to Pakistan or the Sudan or Nigeria, are they going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? Hell no. So why should we?

No, it means you can't twist around my words or the Constitution, current law, or advancements in law so it can mean what you want it to mean.

Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.

But if those rights are in fact 'inalienable' then surely that means you have no right to restrict them, if in fact you can.

I think we might need to define the term 'inalienable' because that seems to be the issue although we have had this discussion here several times in the past.

Inalienable is interchangeable with natural as far as rights are concerned. If right is natural, then how can you possibly say that everyone is not entitled to them?

Do you see the double standard here Merc? If your country (any country, not just the US) makes laws concerning non citizens, then there must be some recourse for those non-citizens. It's ok to say that people must live by the law of the land etc, but if there's two sets of laws, that seems a little bit unbalanced and unstable.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

No where does it say that you are in some way guarenteed the right to happiness, only that you can pursuit them. It is quite evident that any and all governments selectively take away individual rights when they are abused for criminal acts. Ours included.

I just do not agree, every country in the world has two sets of laws for citizens and non-citizens. Why should the US be different. We have allowed people to take advantage of the loop holes in our society for to long. IMHO, since 9/11 all that was changed and the gloves are off, permanently. It is the price of doing business in this ever changing world. If we do not adapt to the ever increasing threats we shall perish.

Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?

You still need to get your facts straight.

If you think Indonesia is not anti-American, you are delusional:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9679C8B63

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...600442_pf.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/as...als/index.html

Why?

The combat at Lexington and Concord was pretty much not an organized event. Even if every American that was shooting at the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord were part of the Massachusetts militia, they were not under the command of the colonial governor. They did not have any legal sanction.

After the British made it back to Boston, armed men from other colonies went to Massachusetts to help with the siege. And even when these armed men were adopted as the colonial army by the Continental Congress in June of 1775 they were still illegal because the Continental Congress did not have any legal standing in the international community at that time.

So on what grounds do we have the people at Gitmo locked up? Are they not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Then perhaps our troops should stay within our borders?

Is Gitmo not under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? If it is under U.S. jurisdiction, can we not guarantee the detainees we have there the same rights that the U.S. government guarantees its own citizens?

How do you know that illegals are here illegally before you give them at least a hearing in court to ascertain their status? You seem to be in the habit of presuming people to be guilty, which is anathema to U.S. jurisprudence.

I am not about to defend all of the enemy combatants captured and sent to Gitmo. Many should go home. If I have my way they will all go home to their home countries and let their own govenments do as they want with them. The way I understand it is there is only a handfull that should and will stand trial under US law, even if it is by Military Tribunal. Enemy Combatants are not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness any more than a serial killer in the US or anyone else who is accused of a crime is entitled to such rights. You lose them when you take up arms against me.

I haven’t twisted anything. You are the one trying to make the Constitution mean something that its plain wording does not mean.

BTW: Can you cite anything in Madison’s Notes or the Federalist Papers to show that the people who actually prepared the Constitution thought it means what you say it means regarding restricting legal due process to citizens?

No, I do not buy that they are afforded the same rights.



How could they be illegals if they are not here illegally? Who says illegals are not given a hearing? Why do you need a hearing if you are caught by the Border Patrol jumping a fence? Such anathema to US jurisprudence is practiced legally everyday.

No, no one can including you. This is an area where there is much discussion. Plain wording? Please. People which much greater credentials than you or I have been having these debates for 200 years.

You have mistaken me for someone who is here to convince you of my position. I am not. I certainly don't support your position and you are not going to change my mind on my view of it.

btw, you still have not answered this question, "Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?"

You are the most obtuse person that I have encountered on the net in quite a while. The 5th Amendment says person, it does not say citizen. You have yet to present anything other than your own opinion as evidence that the Constitution limits legal due process to citizens.

Most certainly I did. It is in black and white post #62. It is written on paper on the Constitution itself:


"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.

By locking people up at Gitmo has our government not taken away their right to liberty and to pursue happiness? And just how do know that these people deserve to have these rights taken from them for criminal activity if we have proven in a court or tribunal that they are in fact criminals?

Why don’t you give us a list of countries that take away inalienable rights of non-citizens without American-style legal due process?

Your documentation for this claim is what?

Why don't you give me a list of countries that do not? Do some research and get back to me. Have you been to any third world countries. How about Africa. I can name quite a few. American-style due process is just that, American. Some other countries have similar laws but they are not the same. Look up Miranda Warnings, what other countries have those?

Just how do you know that these criminals have the rights afforded to them?

What has this to do with the topic under discussion? If you agree that inalienable rights exist, it does not matter what the source of these rights is.

Name those that do not. A very simple search on google will yield you thousands of searches.

Without a trial with legal due process rights, how do you know which, if any, of the people held at Gitmo are enemy combatants?

You say that non-citizens have no legal due process rights in America, so why bother to give anyone at Gitmo a trial? Why not simply authorize you to go down there and bash all of their heads in because they are not U.S. citizens?

You’d make a good Nazi since you would willfully deprive anyone who is merely accused of a crime (and I would presume by your statement that you include citizens and non-citizens alike) of their due process rights just because they have been accused.

No one, but this is my entire point. We don't know that an illegal is an illegal without giving them legal due process whereby they are proven to be illegal.

Because if you are using our Constitution as an example of "inalienable rights", and you want to use literal examples of such a right, then you must agree that some form of a higher power gives them to you:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

You can't cherry pick the bits you want to agree with if we follow your track of literal translations.

Amazing. The only thing you know of me is what has transpired on this board. But yet you presume to know what my credentials are.

Well are they illegals or not? I am using your terms. Either you are here legally or not. So by your reasoning if we capture people who have jumped our border we have to give them a hearing? Hmmm, I think not.

Amazing. So far I know that I do not agree with your statements, that much is clear. I am not really interested in your credentials. This is a discussion on a forum, not really all that important in the greater scheme.

So far this is not a discussion about torture. That would be another discussion. Don't change the subject. Answer my previous questions if you want to continue.

I don't have all the answers. So far as they are not US Citizens I do not believe they have the same rights as the rest of us. What part of that did you miss? I am not asking you to agree with me.

Because I would rather send them directly to their home countries and let them do with them as they wish, not my problem.

Amazing. The only thing you know of me is what has transpired on this board. But yet you presume to know what my credentials are.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

The Constitution is for US citizens alone.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.

I am still waiting for you to cite where the United States Constitution applies to all people of the world who are not citizens of the United States.

Well, flaja, you could start by reading up on the Semitic language family and their internal resemblances. And be very careful about bellowing "Nazi!" -- this lot will invoke Godwin's Law of Flame Fights at the drop of an eyeshade (come to think of it, an eyepatch), let alone the drop of a hat.

LookLex

Semitic Languages (and Phoenician)